Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[John L. Ries]

Even so, there are other Linux distros that still support traditional UNIX 
init.  Slackware comes to mind, though it does not use the traditional 
System V startup script mechanism, but apparently one based on old 
fashioned BSD, and I would be surprised if Slackware and its derivatives 
were the only currently maintained examples.


In any case, the source code is freely available, allowing anyone(s) with 
the time and know-how to abolish SystemD and put SysVInit back in place. 
The old engineering maxim of "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" 
still holds; it takes work to go against the grain, as I'm sure nearly all 
Linux users are aware.


Personally, while I think the tools available for configuring SystemD 
leave much to be desired (no, I'm not volunteering to write better ones; 
my job keeps me plenty busy as it is), and I think SysVInit scripts are 
a lot more readable than SystemD files; I am slowly coming to grips with 
SystemD and I'm sure I will be come more proficient with it as time goes 
on (but systemadm in its present form is still almost useless; systemctl 
is much better).


--|
John L. Ries  |
Salford Systems   |
Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 |
or (435)867-8885  |
--|


On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Doug wrote:




On 09/05/2015 09:40 PM, Glenn English wrote:

On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Erik Lauritsen  wrote:


I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war" about systemd 
broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd from my systems because I don't 
like the implementation.

Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove systemd only to find our 
that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made dependent upon libsystemd0

"This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a Debian system: 
logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The remaining standard BSD utilities are 
provided by bsdmainutils."

What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?

Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made dependent 
upon libsystemd0!?!?!?

Freedom of choice my ass!

Lotsa freedom. One of my boxes is doing a major install of FreeBSD as we speak, 
so I can see if I can live with it. So far it seems a lot like Debian, except 
for iptables, the way their equivalent of /etc/init.d is done, and the funny 
names they call things in /dev...


The last time I looked--about 6 months ago--FreeBSD requires a file
system that is not compatible with Linux or Windows; nothing can
communicate with it. Has that changed? Or is there a way to install
FreeBSD on an ext4 or NTFS file system, or some other fs that
Linux can read? I'd like to try it out, but not at the expense of having
a disk that nothing else can read, including GParted.

--doug

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Bob Holtzman]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:05:26AM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 8/09/2015 5:09 AM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:29:14PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> >> On 7/09/2015 7:15 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >>> I gather Devuan is doing well.  So there are choices.  One of course is 
> >>> stick 
> >>> with Debian, and work to rename all the libraries whose names cause such 
> >>> distress. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
> 
> ... this bit "A rose", see further below.
> 
> >> And re-branding Monsanto is still ... Monsanto.  Renaming is just hiding
> >> the facts or at least making them harder to be seen.
> > 
> > Maybe I'm misreading your post but Devuan isn't simply renamed Debian.
> >>From what I gather from the web site, it's Debian *without* systemd.
> 
> Oh no, I wasn't meaning anything to do with Devuan; Lisi mentioned about
> renaming systemd related parts, my view is that this would just mask the
> fact that it is systemd, in effect an attempt to mislead the users as to
> the real facts.
> 
> Devuan is very admirable, great work by them.

Yup, I did misread it! 

-- 

Bob Holtzman
A fair fight is the result of poor planning.

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Martin Read]

On 07/09/15 08:29, Andrew McGlashan wrote:

I still tend that there should be a desktop version that may or may not
optionally have systemd and a server version that definitely does not
have systemd.


It is, to me, nonsensical to suggest that systemd has no utility in a 
server context. I mean, the TC member most enthusiastic about adopting 
systemd, who even took the trouble to actually *try out the proposed 
successors to sysvinit*, was a large-site server administrator.

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Riley Baird]

> And re-branding Monsanto is still ... Monsanto.  Renaming is just hiding
> the facts or at least making them harder to be seen.

So far, we've had references to cancer, Monsato and human rights
abuses. Seriously, even if Debian decided to go completely proprietary,
it wouldn't be as bad as those things.


pgp5sEEQ4P4WS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Jessica Litwin]

Hitler.

There, I said it.  Can we move on now?

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Riley Baird <
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch> wrote:

> > And re-branding Monsanto is still ... Monsanto.  Renaming is just hiding
> > the facts or at least making them harder to be seen.
>
> So far, we've had references to cancer, Monsato and human rights
> abuses. Seriously, even if Debian decided to go completely proprietary,
> it wouldn't be as bad as those things.
>



-- 
Jessica K. Litwin
jessicalitwin.com
twitter: press5
aim: press5key
skype: dr_jkl

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Andrew McGlashan]

On 7/09/2015 7:15 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> Carl didn't overstate half as much as calling systemd a cancer with 
> tentacles.  
> (Do cancers actually have tentacles??).

It's plainly obvious, it is exactly what it is.  Read Lennart's own blog
if you want more proof, it's all there, unless he has taken it down.

I still tend that there should be a desktop version that may or may not
optionally have systemd and a server version that definitely does not
have systemd.  Not that I would support any version with systemd, but
some seem to see it as a desktop enabler of some sort.

> I gather Devuan is doing well.  So there are choices.  One of course is stick 
> with Debian, and work to rename all the libraries whose names cause such 
> distress. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

And re-branding Monsanto is still ... Monsanto.  Renaming is just hiding
the facts or at least making them harder to be seen.

A.

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 04:15:11AM -0400, Jessica Litwin wrote:
> Hitler.
> 
> There, I said it.  Can we move on now?

I fear times are changing. Everyone hates SysVInit. Most have forgotten
Godwin's Law. Top-quoting is rampant. Young'uns these days, tsk, tsk.

;-)

Regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXtY8MACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaJ8QCdFSkeBfpwnYYFkG7N/J8SFUFQ
x3sAnjPNhJJqRrSB1WORJaVlTgzorM8S
=8Bfz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Laurent Bigonville]

Erik Lauritsen wrote:


I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war"
about systemd broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd
from my systems because I don't like the implementation.

Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove
systemd only to find our that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made
dependent upon libsystemd0

"This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a
Debian system: logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The
remaining standard BSD utilities are provided by bsdmainutils."

What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?

Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made
dependent upon libsystemd0!?!?!?


The bsdutils package (which is built from the *util-linux* source
package) contains reimplementation of tools that were initially existing
on BSD, not the BSD utilities themselves.

And to answer the question why that package has a dependency against
_libsystemd0_ package, it's because the logger utility is also writing
to the systemd journal if it's running in addition to good old syslog.
Not enabling the feature would mean functionally loss for people who
want to use systemd functionalities.


Freedom of choice my ass!


Well the fact that you have a dependency against _libsystemd0_ doesn't
say anything about running systemd running as PID1 as it turns itself to
a noop is PID1 is not systemd.

I personally still have troubles to understand why this is even an
issue. There are tenth of libraries that are installed on a debian
system that are only useful for some limited use-case (libselinux or
libaudit for example), Debian has a policy of enabling most (if not all)
the features in its packages, why is libsystemd suddenly a problem?

But if having libsystemd0 installed on your system is a problem for you,
you still have the freedom to rebuild the packages to remove it

Cheers,

Laurent Bigonville

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 07 September 2015 21:05:26 Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> Lisi mentioned about
> renaming systemd related parts,

No, I mentioned renaming libraries which are used both by systemd and by other 
applications.  If they are not used by other applications, they can simply be 
removed.

Lisi

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 07 September 2015 20:09:12 Bob Holtzman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:29:14PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> > On 7/09/2015 7:15 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > Carl didn't overstate half as much as calling systemd a cancer with
> > > tentacles. (Do cancers actually have tentacles??).
> >
> > It's plainly obvious, it is exactly what it is.  Read Lennart's own blog
> > if you want more proof, it's all there, unless he has taken it down.
> >
> > I still tend that there should be a desktop version that may or may not
> > optionally have systemd and a server version that definitely does not
> > have systemd.  Not that I would support any version with systemd, but
> > some seem to see it as a desktop enabler of some sort.
> >
> > > I gather Devuan is doing well.  So there are choices.  One of course is
> > > stick with Debian, and work to rename all the libraries whose names
> > > cause such distress. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
> >
> > And re-branding Monsanto is still ... Monsanto.  Renaming is just hiding
> > the facts or at least making them harder to be seen.
>
> Maybe I'm misreading your post but Devuan isn't simply renamed Debian.

If that is addressed at me, yes.  Reread it more slowly.
>
> >From what I gather from the web site, it's Debian *without* systemd.  Yes.

Lisi

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Andrew McGlashan]

On 8/09/2015 5:09 AM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:29:14PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>> On 7/09/2015 7:15 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>> I gather Devuan is doing well.  So there are choices.  One of course is 
>>> stick 
>>> with Debian, and work to rename all the libraries whose names cause such 
>>> distress. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

... this bit "A rose", see further below.

>> And re-branding Monsanto is still ... Monsanto.  Renaming is just hiding
>> the facts or at least making them harder to be seen.
> 
> Maybe I'm misreading your post but Devuan isn't simply renamed Debian.
>>From what I gather from the web site, it's Debian *without* systemd.

Oh no, I wasn't meaning anything to do with Devuan; Lisi mentioned about
renaming systemd related parts, my view is that this would just mask the
fact that it is systemd, in effect an attempt to mislead the users as to
the real facts.

Devuan is very admirable, great work by them.

Kind Regards
AndrewM

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Bob Holtzman]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:29:14PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 7/09/2015 7:15 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > Carl didn't overstate half as much as calling systemd a cancer with 
> > tentacles.  
> > (Do cancers actually have tentacles??).
> 
> It's plainly obvious, it is exactly what it is.  Read Lennart's own blog
> if you want more proof, it's all there, unless he has taken it down.
> 
> I still tend that there should be a desktop version that may or may not
> optionally have systemd and a server version that definitely does not
> have systemd.  Not that I would support any version with systemd, but
> some seem to see it as a desktop enabler of some sort.
> 
> > I gather Devuan is doing well.  So there are choices.  One of course is 
> > stick 
> > with Debian, and work to rename all the libraries whose names cause such 
> > distress. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
> 
> And re-branding Monsanto is still ... Monsanto.  Renaming is just hiding
> the facts or at least making them harder to be seen.

Maybe I'm misreading your post but Devuan isn't simply renamed Debian.
>From what I gather from the web site, it's Debian *without* systemd.

-- 

Bob Holtzman
A fair fight is the result of poor planning.

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 06 September 2015 20:31:11 Joe wrote:
> You might want to ease back on that one a little, it turns out that the
> family have lived in Turkey for three years, and were not fleeing war.
> Tragic, most definitely, bombs, no.

They left their home because of bombs.  They could not go back to their home 
because of bombs and fighting.  They were looking for a new home.  You have 
to be desperate to try to cross ten miles of stormy sea in an overcrowded 
rubber dinghy.

Carl didn't overstate half as much as calling systemd a cancer with tentacles.  
(Do cancers actually have tentacles??).

I gather Devuan is doing well.  So there are choices.  One of course is stick 
with Debian, and work to rename all the libraries whose names cause such 
distress. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Lisi

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Ric Moore]

On 09/06/2015 06:28 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:32:30AM +0200, Greencopper wrote:

[...]


Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made dependent
upon libsystemd0!?!?!?

Freedom of choice my ass!


Hi Erik

Systemd is spreading like a cancer striking its ugly tentacles into
everything it can get its hands on.


Please. Pretty please. Your post is helpful. Can we let the "cancer"
part out? Some want it, some not.


I think it is frigging WONDERFUL! So there. :) Ric

--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Jimmy Johnson]

On 09/06/2015 11:18 AM, Dan Hitt wrote:

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Glenn English  wrote:



...

I must be missing something. Why would anybody need to read/write files in the 
format of another OS?

I have Macs and Linux. Whenever I want to transfer something around the house, 
I use SCP. Around the country, it's usually an email attachment or rsync over 
SSH. I've never even thought of pulling a disk out of one machine to read it on 
another. Not since the floppy days, anyway.

What have I overlooked? Why does that capability even exist on an OS? 
Reformatted thumb drives?


You might have a multi-boot system, i.e., several OSes installed...


Yep..I can skip chroot and v-box. I can check file systems and many 
other things without using a flash drive or booting other media and it's 
great for testing upstream.

--
Debian Jessie - KDE 4.14.2  - EXT4 - AMD64 at sda10
Registered Linux User #380263

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Jimmy Johnson]

On 09/06/2015 11:35 AM, Curt wrote:

On 2015-09-06, Greencopper  wrote:


Systemd is spreading like a cancer striking its ugly tentacles into
everything it can get its hands on.



"cancer striking its ugly tentacles into everything it can get its hands
on"

So pathetically put I wonder if you might not be a sock puppet for the
other side, mixing metaphors and confusing appendages in order to cast
doubt upon the mental abilities of the opposition (that is, yourself and
your minions if we could accept you at face value).

Everything is so confusing.

But while three-year-olds are washing up upon this shore and that face
down and stiff from *rigor mortis* because they want to get out from
under the bombs, let's have another long, long circle jerk whine and
dine about our favorite init systems.

At least we got our priorities straight here, right?


Curt perhaps you are the sock puppet or perhaps you want to be the 
puppet master..Shame on you..

--
Debian Jessie - KDE 4.14.2  - EXT4 - AMD64 at sda10
Registered Linux User #380263

Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Greencopper]

> I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war" about systemd
> broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd from my systems because 
> I
> don't like the implementation.
>
> Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove systemd only 
> to
> find our that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made dependent upon 
> libsystemd0
>
> "This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a Debian
> system: logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The remaining standard
> BSD utilities are provided by bsdmainutils."
>
> What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?
>
> Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made 
> dependent
> upon libsystemd0!?!?!?
>
> Freedom of choice my ass!

Hi Erik

Systemd is spreading like a cancer striking its ugly tentacles into
everything it can get its hands on.

But there is hope!

Eventhough it is still alpha we have migrated almost all of our
desktop systems to Devuan (the Debian fork), still missing a few, but
we're getting to them as well. It works really great! Like Jessie but
without systemd.

For servers we have shifted from Debian to Alpine Linux. Not only does
Alpine Linux not have systemd, it is also a much more secure Linux,
running with a patched kernel, and it is really doing things the
original UNIX way.

We're also running OpenBSD and FreeBSD on some of our firewalls, but
we're also using FreeBSD on desktops with identical Xfce4 setups to
those of Devuan.

It is all working really great and I can highly recommend it!

Debian has been our favorite OS for many many years, but the way the
users unhappiness with systemd was handled, and the implementation
itself, has made us bid farewell.

Kind regards

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

John Hasler wrote:
> You are free to choose FreeBSD.

That will become an adventure. Common roots are more than
20 years in the past.

FreeBSD is not too bad. But you will notice that it has a
much smaller tester community than GNU/Linux. The focus is
on big iron, not on personal computers.

There is a project named PC-BSD which tries to make it more
desktoply:
  http://wiki.pcbsd.org
  http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/Turn_FreeBSD_into_PC-BSD%C2%AE
 

For myself it would not be a good choice, because ISO 9660
mounting cannot handle files >= 4 GiB or multi-session
added above 4 GiB.
Further FreeBSD 8 crashes reliably when i switch off an idle,
not mounted eSATA DVD drive and less reliably when i do this
with a USB DVD drive. (No admin of a 128 core machine would do
that, of course. It could bring bad luck to the 1 TiB of RAM.)

The hardware driver problem might be fixed in FreeBSD 11,
but the ISO 9660 problems are deeply rooted in the code
for inode number generation and inode addressing.


Doug wrote:
> is there a way to install FreeBSD
> on an ext4 or NTFS file system, or some other fs that
> Linux can read?

They seem to be heading towards ZFS, due to lack of license
allergic reactions. That will be another culture shock for
a migrant from Linux.
  https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/zfs.html

I know it from Solaris and its administration is very
different from other filesystems. (My favorite command
on Solaris is: pfexec poweroff)


> I'd like to try it out, but not at the expense of having a
> disk that nothing else can read, including GParted.

It's that they put several of their "slices" into what we
call "partition".
You typically need one MBR partition to host all slices of
a FreeBSD. That's actually better contained than a Linux
installation. (Dunno how they deal with GPT partitions.)

How about a virtual machine for a start, or Debian/kFreeBSD,
the not so official Debian port to the FreeBSD kernel ?
  https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/kfreebsd-amd64/
  https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/kfreebsd-amd64/ch03s01.html.en


Glenn English wrote:
> But *surely* they can read an old PC-DOS file. Everybody can do that.

Everybody should be able to read ISO 9660.
But your mileage varies from operating system to operating system.

I understand the goal was to install FreeBSD so that one can
read (and write ?) its system disk from Linux.
The basic filesystem of FreeBSD is UFS. Seems to be supported
on Linux.
  http://askubuntu.com/questions/85154/mount-ufs-filesystem
I guess it depends aminly on Linux' ability to map slices
to partition devices (e.g. /dev/sdb4).


> No mention that can find of FAT anything. But *surely*...

Yes, it can. (At least with mainstream use cases.)


> I don't know for sure that their tar/dump write tapes like
> Linux does

tar or cpio should be compatible. Not to speak of third party
things like "bru" or "dar". But where to find tape hardware,
anyway ?

I can confirm that DVD with ISO 9660 below the 4 GiB limitations
is exchangeable with Linux. (Unless you hit more bugs of any
of both OSes.)
A DVD with a tape archive on it will work too, of course.
Device addresses are easy: /dev/cd0 , /dev/cd1 , ...

For those who want to develop their own OS entrails:
NetBSD has the nicest kernel developer community i ever met.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Glenn English]

On Sep 6, 2015, at 1:56 AM, Thomas Schmitt  wrote:

> FreeBSD is not too bad. But you will notice that it has a
> much smaller tester community than GNU/Linux. The focus is
> on big iron, not on personal computers.

Servers, Internet domains -- medium iron. That's why I tried so hard to learn 
how to make Debian work, back in the day.

> There is a project named PC-BSD which tries to make it more
> desktoply:
>  http://wiki.pcbsd.org
>  http://wiki.pcbsd.org/index.php/Turn_FreeBSD_into_PC-BSD%C2%AE

Saw that. The download failed at a bit over a G. And the FreeBSD compile of 
XFCE failed in Thunar. There seems to be significant trouble in BSD-land. 
Debian's apt always works flawlessly for me -- it just puts the bits over there 
so Postfix can listen for SMTP.

> For myself it would not be a good choice, because ISO 9660
> mounting cannot handle files >= 4 GiB or multi-session
> added above 4 GiB.

I don't do movies. I'm just an old text oriented server guy. So that wouldn't 
be a prob here. As long as it runs reliably, several thousand times, to do a 
few megs.

But I do need a GUI, for those lovely terminal emulators that scroll back a 
thousand lines and use a legible type face. That's still a long way from 4G, 
though, but Gnome's working on that.

> But where to find tape hardware,

> anyway ?

Amazon? They have several. 

-- 
Glenn English

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Riley Baird]

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 22:40:11 -0400
Doug  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 09/05/2015 09:40 PM, Glenn English wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Erik Lauritsen  wrote:
> >
> >> I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war" about 
> >> systemd broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd from my 
> >> systems because I don't like the implementation.
> >>
> >> Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove systemd 
> >> only to find our that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made dependent 
> >> upon libsystemd0
> >>
> >> "This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a 
> >> Debian system: logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The 
> >> remaining standard BSD utilities are provided by bsdmainutils."
> >>
> >> What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?
> >>
> >> Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made 
> >> dependent upon libsystemd0!?!?!?
> >>
> >> Freedom of choice my ass!
> > Lotsa freedom. One of my boxes is doing a major install of FreeBSD as we 
> > speak, so I can see if I can live with it. So far it seems a lot like 
> > Debian, except for iptables, the way their equivalent of /etc/init.d is 
> > done, and the funny names they call things in /dev...
> >
> The last time I looked--about 6 months ago--FreeBSD requires a file 
> system that is not compatible with Linux or Windows; nothing can
> communicate with it. Has that changed? Or is there a way to install 
> FreeBSD on an ext4 or NTFS file system, or some other fs that
> Linux can read? I'd like to try it out, but not at the expense of having 
> a disk that nothing else can read, including GParted.

You can mount FreeBSD filesystems in Linux, you just need to set the
right ufstype argument, since it isn't detected automatically.

https://askubuntu.com/questions/85189/error-trying-to-mount-freebsd-ufs-partition-from-freenas

Also, apparently FreeBSD can read ext2 filesystems, but I haven't had
any experience with this

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/filesystems-linux.html


pgpHWztgf2u4o.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Doug McGarrett:

The last time I looked--about 6 months ago--FreeBSD requires a 
filesystem that is not compatible with Linux or Windows; nothing 
cancommunicate with it.




About six months ago, FreeBSD could still perfectly happily run on UFS 
volumes, and there was no such requirement.  I am confident that that is 
still the case in 10.2, although I have yet to upgrade my UFS-using 
FreeBSD machines to 10.2.

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 08:32:30AM +0200, Greencopper wrote:

[...]

> > Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made 
> > dependent
> > upon libsystemd0!?!?!?
> >
> > Freedom of choice my ass!
> 
> Hi Erik
> 
> Systemd is spreading like a cancer striking its ugly tentacles into
> everything it can get its hands on.

Please. Pretty please. Your post is helpful. Can we let the "cancer"
part out? Some want it, some not.

> But there is hope!

Of course there is!
- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXsFU8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZAPACfZr6kT+/gyxkaZqu+xkdolaLd
vxEAnR/3BqOasPas73G00mg2xv/VgOGP
=TPre
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Anthony Campbell]

On 05 Sep 2015, John Hasler wrote:
> Erik Lauritsen writes:
> > Freedom of choice my ass!
> 
> You are free to choose FreeBSD.
> -- 

Or OpenBSD, which for my money is a better bet for the Desktop.

-- 
Anthony Campbellhttp://www.acampbell.uk

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Glenn English]

On Sep 6, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Martin Read  wrote:

> On 06/09/15 16:11, Doug wrote:
>> Perhaps BCD can read a DOS file. It's the _other_ way I'm thinking of. I
>> want to be able to access BCD from Linux or Windows, and vice-versa--
>> access Linux and/or Windows from BCD.  Anybody know if this is possible,
>> and if so, how?
> 
> Read/write support for UFS has been availabe in the Linux kernel for quite 
> some time, and casual inspection of my Debian GNU/Linux jessie system 
> suggests that the UFS kernel module is available in the standard Debian 
> kernel packages.

I must be missing something. Why would anybody need to read/write files in the 
format of another OS? 

I have Macs and Linux. Whenever I want to transfer something around the house, 
I use SCP. Around the country, it's usually an email attachment or rsync over 
SSH. I've never even thought of pulling a disk out of one machine to read it on 
another. Not since the floppy days, anyway.

What have I overlooked? Why does that capability even exist on an OS? 
Reformatted thumb drives?

-- 
Glenn English

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Dan Hitt]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Glenn English  wrote:
>
...
> I must be missing something. Why would anybody need to read/write files in 
> the format of another OS?
>
> I have Macs and Linux. Whenever I want to transfer something around the 
> house, I use SCP. Around the country, it's usually an email attachment or 
> rsync over SSH. I've never even thought of pulling a disk out of one machine 
> to read it on another. Not since the floppy days, anyway.
>
> What have I overlooked? Why does that capability even exist on an OS? 
> Reformatted thumb drives?

You might have a multi-boot system, i.e., several OSes installed, and
when you boot into one of your linux OSes you might want to read
everything else on any disk.

(I think there are other cases as well, but more complex.)

dan

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Glenn English]

On Sep 6, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Dan Hitt  wrote:

> You might have a multi-boot system, i.e., several OSes installed, and
> when you boot into one of your linux OSes you might want to read
> everything else on any disk.

Ah! Thank you. I knew there must be a reason.

-- 
Glenn English

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Curt]

On 2015-09-06, Greencopper  wrote:
>
> Systemd is spreading like a cancer striking its ugly tentacles into
> everything it can get its hands on.
>

"cancer striking its ugly tentacles into everything it can get its hands
on"

So pathetically put I wonder if you might not be a sock puppet for the
other side, mixing metaphors and confusing appendages in order to cast
doubt upon the mental abilities of the opposition (that is, yourself and
your minions if we could accept you at face value).

Everything is so confusing.

But while three-year-olds are washing up upon this shore and that face
down and stiff from *rigor mortis* because they want to get out from
under the bombs, let's have another long, long circle jerk whine and
dine about our favorite init systems.

At least we got our priorities straight here, right?

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Doug]

On 09/06/2015 12:29 AM, Glenn English wrote:

On Sep 5, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Doug  wrote:


The last time I looked--about 6 months ago--FreeBSD requires a file system that 
is not compatible with Linux or Windows; nothing can
communicate with it. Has that changed? Or is there a way to install FreeBSD on 
an ext4 or NTFS file system, or some other fs that
Linux can read? I'd like to try it out, but not at the expense of having a disk 
that nothing else can read, including GParted.

Good question. I haven't gotten that far yet. I read in the books that their 
file system is somewhat different from other people.

But *surely* they can read an old PC-DOS file. Everybody can do that. I'm 
trying to get XFCE going, but I'll stick a FAT-16 thumb drive in it in the 
morning and see what happens.

Perhaps BCD can read a DOS file. It's the _other_ way I'm thinking of. I 
want to be able to access BCD from Linux or Windows, and vice-versa--
access Linux and/or Windows from BCD.  Anybody know if this is possible, 
and if so, how?


--doug

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Martin Read]

On 06/09/15 16:11, Doug wrote:

Perhaps BCD can read a DOS file. It's the _other_ way I'm thinking of. I
want to be able to access BCD from Linux or Windows, and vice-versa--
access Linux and/or Windows from BCD.  Anybody know if this is possible,
and if so, how?


Read/write support for UFS has been availabe in the Linux kernel for 
quite some time, and casual inspection of my Debian GNU/Linux jessie 
system suggests that the UFS kernel module is available in the standard 
Debian kernel packages.


I have no idea how well it works in practice, since I have never used 
that functionality.

Re: Re; Okay, that's too much now!

[Joe]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 18:35:49 + (UTC)
Curt  wrote:

> On 2015-09-06, Greencopper  wrote:
> >
> > Systemd is spreading like a cancer striking its ugly tentacles into
> > everything it can get its hands on.
> >
> 
> "cancer striking its ugly tentacles into everything it can get its
> hands on"
> 
> So pathetically put I wonder if you might not be a sock puppet for the
> other side, mixing metaphors and confusing appendages in order to cast
> doubt upon the mental abilities of the opposition (that is, yourself
> and your minions if we could accept you at face value).
> 
> Everything is so confusing.
> 
> But while three-year-olds are washing up upon this shore and that face
> down and stiff from *rigor mortis* because they want to get out from
> under the bombs, let's have another long, long circle jerk whine and
> dine about our favorite init systems.
> 
You might want to ease back on that one a little, it turns out that the
family have lived in Turkey for three years, and were not fleeing war.
Tragic, most definitely, bombs, no.

> At least we got our priorities straight here, right?
> 

'Our'? We all have different priorities.

OK, the language was dramatic rather than pathetic, but fairly
descriptive. All kinds of system software *is* being pulled together
under the 'systemd' badge, and inevitably will one day stop functioning
separately. It's not wrong to point this out, though it is better done
dispassionately. Maybe it's a good thing, but good or bad, it's worth
being continuously aware of.

-- 
Joe

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Glenn English]

On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Erik Lauritsen  wrote:

> I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war" about 
> systemd broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd from my systems 
> because I don't like the implementation.
> 
> Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove systemd only 
> to find our that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made dependent upon 
> libsystemd0
> 
> "This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a Debian 
> system: logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The remaining 
> standard BSD utilities are provided by bsdmainutils."
> 
> What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?
> 
> Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made 
> dependent upon libsystemd0!?!?!?
> 
> Freedom of choice my ass!

Lotsa freedom. One of my boxes is doing a major install of FreeBSD as we speak, 
so I can see if I can live with it. So far it seems a lot like Debian, except 
for iptables, the way their equivalent of /etc/init.d is done, and the funny 
names they call things in /dev...

-- 
Glenn English

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[John Hasler]

Erik Lauritsen writes:
> Freedom of choice my ass!

You are free to choose FreeBSD.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Okay, that's too much now!

[Erik Lauritsen]

I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war" about systemd 
broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd from my systems because I 
don't like the implementation.

Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove systemd only to 
find our that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made dependent upon libsystemd0

"This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a Debian 
system: logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The remaining standard 
BSD utilities are provided by bsdmainutils."

What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?

Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made dependent 
upon libsystemd0!?!?!?

Freedom of choice my ass!

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Doug]

On 09/05/2015 09:40 PM, Glenn English wrote:

On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Erik Lauritsen  wrote:


I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war" about systemd 
broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd from my systems because I don't 
like the implementation.

Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove systemd only to find our 
that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made dependent upon libsystemd0

"This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a Debian system: 
logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The remaining standard BSD utilities are 
provided by bsdmainutils."

What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?

Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made dependent 
upon libsystemd0!?!?!?

Freedom of choice my ass!

Lotsa freedom. One of my boxes is doing a major install of FreeBSD as we speak, 
so I can see if I can live with it. So far it seems a lot like Debian, except 
for iptables, the way their equivalent of /etc/init.d is done, and the funny 
names they call things in /dev...

The last time I looked--about 6 months ago--FreeBSD requires a file 
system that is not compatible with Linux or Windows; nothing can
communicate with it. Has that changed? Or is there a way to install 
FreeBSD on an ext4 or NTFS file system, or some other fs that
Linux can read? I'd like to try it out, but not at the expense of having 
a disk that nothing else can read, including GParted.


--doug

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[The Wanderer]

On 2015-09-05 at 20:23, Erik Lauritsen wrote:

> I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war"
> about systemd broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd
> from my systems because I don't like the implementation.
> 
> Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove
> systemd only to find our that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made
> dependent upon libsystemd0
> 
> "This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a
> Debian system: logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The
> remaining standard BSD utilities are provided by bsdmainutils."
> 
> What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?
> 
> Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made
> dependent upon libsystemd0!?!?!?

Because logger has support for writing to the systemd journal, and it
needs some way to detect whether or not systemd is present, so that it
can know whether or not attempting to write to the journal will work.

libsystemd0 provides functions to enable detection of which systemd
components are present / available, and - to the best of my awareness,
which may not be very good in this area - little or nothing else. It's
the piece which lets programs be able to work with systemd when it's
there, but also work without it when it's not there. It is not systemd
itself.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Glenn English]

On Sep 5, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Doug  wrote:

> The last time I looked--about 6 months ago--FreeBSD requires a file system 
> that is not compatible with Linux or Windows; nothing can
> communicate with it. Has that changed? Or is there a way to install FreeBSD 
> on an ext4 or NTFS file system, or some other fs that
> Linux can read? I'd like to try it out, but not at the expense of having a 
> disk that nothing else can read, including GParted.

Good question. I haven't gotten that far yet. I read in the books that their 
file system is somewhat different from other people. 

But *surely* they can read an old PC-DOS file. Everybody can do that. I'm 
trying to get XFCE going, but I'll stick a FAT-16 thumb drive in it in the 
morning and see what happens.

-- 
Glenn English

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

[Glenn English]

On Sep 5, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Doug  wrote:

> The last time I looked--about 6 months ago--FreeBSD requires a file system 
> that is not compatible with Linux or Windows; nothing can
> communicate with it. Has that changed? Or is there a way to install FreeBSD 
> on an ext4 or NTFS file system, or some other fs that
> Linux can read? I'd like to try it out, but not at the expense of having a 
> disk that nothing else can read, including GParted.

The FreeBDS dox claim it's been able to read and write ext2 since v2.2 (there's 
a kernel module to install). ext3 is a little strange, and ext4 is read-only. 
No mention that can find of FAT anything. But *surely*...

And, of course, you can communicate with it via IP (FTP, SSH, etc.) or NFS or 
tape (maybe; I don't know for sure that their tar/dump write tapes like Linux 
does).

-- 
Glenn English