[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
The 10/10/13, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: if something like sshd crashes, you either have a hardware problem or sshd is buggy. Either way, better not be pampered over with a silent service restart. So, restarting a service should not be silent (I think it isn't) and might need better alerts. Oh, don't the admin have the tools for this already (sendmail, motd, snmp, whatever)? I'm not pretending the current situation is perfect but if admins are tired to configure alerts on their own, it should not be that hard to improve and factorize efforts (at Gentoo at least, if not upstream). -- Nicolas Sebrecht
[gentoo-user] Re: Where to put advanced routing configuration?
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: And my counterarguments: 1. The iptables-restore syntax is uglier and harder to read. 2. You get better error reporting calling iptables repeatedly. 3. The published interface will never change; iptables-restore reads an input language whose specification is whatever iptables-save outputs. 4. A bash script is far more standard and less confusing to your coworkers. 5. You can't script iptables-restore! Well, actually you can script iptables-restore. In fact, you can write a function ip4tables which emulates the behaviour of ip4tables by storing data in variables which are then later passed to iptables-restore, and so the user sees almost no difference although race conditions are avoided. However, 3. is a severe problem for such complex functions. There should be an official way how to avoid races, e.g. if ip4tables itself would be able to successively extend an output file which can then be used for iptables-restore. If you have contact to the iptables developers, please suggest such a thing. Or maybe somebody has a bette idea?
[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:04:38AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote: that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. If not, then what was it? You seem to know what it was that started it so why not share? He already said it. Someone added a hard disk to a PDP-9 (or was it an 11?) Literally. It all traces back to that. In those days there was no such thing as volume management or raid. If you added a (seriously expensive) disk the only feasible way to get it's storage in the system was to mount it as a separate volume. From that one single action this entire mess of separate /usr arose as folks discovered more and more reasons to consider it good and keep it around Yes you elide over that part, but it's central: there were more and more reasons to consider it good, and to use it. You said it. They haven't gone away just because some prat's had a brainwave and needs a lie-down, not encouragement. In fact most of them are touted as USPs in the propaganda we get told is a reasoned argument for ditching all our collective experience. That wasn't the question tho. My question wasn't about many years ago but who made the change that broke support for a seperate /usr with no init thingy. The change that happened in the past few years. I think I got my answer already tho. Seems William Hubbs answered it but I plan to read his message again. Different thread tho. Nobody broke it. It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to work out fine that is broken. It just happened to work OK for years because nothing happened to use the code in /usr at that point in the sequence. Actually because people put *thinking* into what things were needed in early boot and what were not. In fact *exactly the same* thinking that goes into sorting out an initramfs. Only you don't need to keep syncing it, and you don't need to worry about missing stuff. Or you never used to, given a reasonably competent distro. Which was half the point in using one. Thankfully software like agetty deliberately has tight linkage, and it's simple enough to move the two or three things that need it to rootfs; it's even officially fine as far as portage is concerned (though I do get an _anticipated_ warning on glibc upgrades.) More and more we are seeing that this is no longer the case. So no-one broke it with a specific commit. True enough. Cumulative lack of discipline is to blame, although personally I blame gmake's insane rewriting of lib deps before the linker even sees them, that makes $+ a lot less useful than it should be, and imo led to a general desire not to deal with linkage in the early days of Linux, that never went away. It has always been broken by design becuase it's a damn stupid idea that just happened to work by fluke. *cough* bullsh1t. IT and computing is rife with this kind of error. Indeed: and even more rife with a history of One True Way. So much so that it's a cliche. Somehow it's now seen as hip to be crap at your craft, unable to recognise an ABI, and cool to subscribe to N + 1 True Way, as that's an innovation on the old form of garbage. And yet GIGO will still apply, traditional as it may be. Peace and hugs ;) steveL -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim
On 11/10/2013 09:54, Steven J. Long wrote: On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:04:38AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote: that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. If not, then what was it? You seem to know what it was that started it so why not share? He already said it. Someone added a hard disk to a PDP-9 (or was it an 11?) Literally. It all traces back to that. In those days there was no such thing as volume management or raid. If you added a (seriously expensive) disk the only feasible way to get it's storage in the system was to mount it as a separate volume. From that one single action this entire mess of separate /usr arose as folks discovered more and more reasons to consider it good and keep it around Yes you elide over that part, but it's central: there were more and more reasons to consider it good, and to use it. You said it. They haven't gone away just because some prat's had a brainwave and needs a lie-down, not encouragement. In fact most of them are touted as USPs in the propaganda we get told is a reasoned argument for ditching all our collective experience. That wasn't the question tho. My question wasn't about many years ago but who made the change that broke support for a seperate /usr with no init thingy. The change that happened in the past few years. I think I got my answer already tho. Seems William Hubbs answered it but I plan to read his message again. Different thread tho. Nobody broke it. It's the general idea that you can leave /usr unmounted until some random arb time later in the startup sequence and just expect things to work out fine that is broken. It just happened to work OK for years because nothing happened to use the code in /usr at that point in the sequence. Actually because people put *thinking* into what things were needed in early boot and what were not. In fact *exactly the same* thinking that goes into sorting out an initramfs. Only you don't need to keep syncing it, and you don't need to worry about missing stuff. Or you never used to, given a reasonably competent distro. Which was half the point in using one. Thankfully software like agetty deliberately has tight linkage, and it's simple enough to move the two or three things that need it to rootfs; it's even officially fine as far as portage is concerned (though I do get an _anticipated_ warning on glibc upgrades.) More and more we are seeing that this is no longer the case. So no-one broke it with a specific commit. True enough. Cumulative lack of discipline is to blame, although personally I blame gmake's insane rewriting of lib deps before the linker even sees them, that makes $+ a lot less useful than it should be, and imo led to a general desire not to deal with linkage in the early days of Linux, that never went away. It has always been broken by design becuase it's a damn stupid idea that just happened to work by fluke. *cough* bullsh1t. IT and computing is rife with this kind of error. Indeed: and even more rife with a history of One True Way. So much so that it's a cliche. Somehow it's now seen as hip to be crap at your craft, unable to recognise an ABI, and cool to subscribe to N + 1 True Way, as that's an innovation on the old form of garbage. And yet GIGO will still apply, traditional as it may be. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate or accomplish with this. All I see in all your responses is that you are railing against why things are no longer the way they used to be. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:37:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:05:39 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: If *something1* at boot time requires access to *something2* at boot time that isn't available then I would say that *something1* is broken by design not the *something2*. What about the case where *something2* *USED TO BE AVAILABLE, BUT HAS BEEN MOVED TO /USR* ? What about the case where something1 wasn't required at boot time but changed circumstances mean it now is? What about it? Honestly it's like you lot don't know the basics of scripting or something. $PATH ffs. (And don't start on at me about badly-coded apps: fix the apps, or the ebuilds not the OS: it's not broken, and certainly does not need to worked-around.) So I would argue that devs relying on /usr always being there have broken the system. So I would argue that unnecessarily moving stuff into /usr is deliberate sabotage, designed to break *something1*. Define unnecessarily in that context? You can't, not for all use cases. There are many files that clearly need to be available early on, and many more that clearly do not. Between them is a huge grey area, files that some need and some don't, that may be needed now or at some indeterminate point in the future. If you put everything that may conceivably be needed at early boot into /, you shift a large chunk of /usr/*bin/ and /usr/lib* into /, effectively negating the point of a small, lean /. That puts us right back where we started, try to define a point of separation that cannot be defined. Funny, sounds a lot like deciding what to put in an initramfs. And frankly it's untrue[2]. Most of the core system utilities have long been intended to run people's systems. All you need to do is stop pretending nu-skool rubbish is as good as the stuff that's survived decades of use. By definition the latter is a much smaller pool of much higher-quality than the mountains of new unproven and untested stuff, that keeps falling over in real life. Exactly the same happened back then: we just don't see the admittedly smaller mountains of crap that fell by the wayside after a year or five. initramfs is the new /, for varying values of new since most distros have been doing it that way for well over a decade. Only it's not, since you're responsible for keeping it in sync with the main system. And for making sure it has everything you need. And hoping they don't change incompatibly between root and initramfs. The point is the burden has shifted, and made the distribution less of a distribution and more of a DIY, and tough sh1t if it don't work, you get to pick up the pieces we broke irrespective of how many scripts you provide to do work that was never needed before, and technically is not needed now[1] It will break. Everything does at some point or another. So I for one don't need the extra hassle from a totally unnecessary extra point of failure. Good luck to you if that's how you roll; just don't tell me what choices I should make, thanks. Regards, steveL. [1] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901206.html [2] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901206-start-75.html ..shows how few things you actually need to move. Note portage is fine with the directory symlinks from /usr to / (I checked with zmedico before I wrote it up.) Also the bug in lvm initscript got fixed, but I still much prefer my machine to have the few extra MB in rootfs, and be able to chuckle at all the eleventy-eleven FUD about those 2 directories. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:35:58PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: wrong analogy and it goes down from here. Really. Ohh, but they are inspired on YOUR analogy, so guess how wrong yours was. your trolling is weak. And since I never saw anything worth reading posted by you, you are very close to plonk territory right now. If his analogies are weak, that's deliberate: to show that your analogy is just as weak. Irrespective of why /usr was first added, or that it was in fact what /home now is, it's proven useful in many contexts. That you don't accept that, won't convince anyone who's lived that truth. All you'll do is argue in circles about irrelevance. The setup of a separate /usr on a networked system was used in amongst other places a few swedish universities. seperate /usr on network has been used in a lot of places. So what? Does that prove anything? Nope, it doesn't. Er quite obviously it proves that a separate /usr can be useful. In fact so much so that all the benefits of the above setup are claimed by that god-awful why split usr is broken because we are dumbasses who got kicked out of the kernel and think that userspace doesn't need stability post, as if they never existed before, and could not exist without a rootfs/usr merge. Seriously, /var is a good candidate for a seperate partition. /usr is not. They both are. Not very convincing is it? Seriously, if you don't see the need for one, good for you. Just stop telling us what to think, will you? too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. Too bad separate /usr is much older than initramfs. too bad that initramfs and initrd are pretty good solutions to the problem of hidden breakage caused by seperate /usr. If you are smart enough to setup an nfs server, I suppose you are smart enough to run dracut/genkernelco. If you are smart enough to run dracut/genkernelco I suppose you are smart enough to see the wrongness of your initial statement too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. too bad I am right and you are and idiot. Originally, the name POSIX referred to IEEE Std 1003.1-1988, released in 1988. The family of POSIX standards is formally designated as IEEE 1003 and the international standard name is ISO/IEC 9945. The standards, formerly known as IEEE-IX, emerged from a project that began circa 1985. Richard Stallman suggested the name POSIX to the IEEE. The committee found it more easily pronounceable and memorable, so it adopted it That is from wikipedia. 1985/1988. When were LSB/FHS created again? FHS in 1994. Hm You really are obtuse. You should try to consider what *point* the other person is trying to make before you mouth off with superior knowledge that completely misses it. *plonk* ditto. AFAIC you're the one who pulled insults out, when in fact you were *completely* missing the point. Bravo. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:17:02PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a separate /usr is broken, as though this were some unfortunate act of insert your deity here, much like an earthquake. This gets patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else round here.) It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. Yeah and that's just vague crap without content ;) No, this breaking of separate /usr was done by some specific project, some specific person, even, in a supreme display of incompetence, malice, or arrogance. How come this project and this person have managed to maintain such a low profile? There seems to have been some sort of conspiracy to do this breakage in secret, each member of the coven pushing the plot until the damage was irrevocable. Who was it? So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This is open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this really was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H would not have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too? No he's just a bit naive: he wants to believe the best of people and did not realise quite how sneaky Poettering is. No doubt he still doesn't. But I'm sure he never foresaw some of their shenanighans, such as claiming their newly inserted breakage was the fault of device-drivers and everyone should switch to their funky new way of loading modules. No-one seemed to think what Torvalds said was incorrect, even if they disagreed with his tone. And yet that's exactly the same crap they pull in user-space, only they seem to think the kernel mentality of userspace is crazy is a howto methodology. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:36:02 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote: It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. Yeah and that's just vague crap without content ;) I bow to your superior expertise in that field :) So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This is open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this really was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H would not have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too? No he's just a bit naive: he wants to believe the best of people and did not realise quite how sneaky Poettering is. No doubt he still doesn't. But I'm sure he never foresaw some of their shenanighans, such as claiming their newly inserted breakage was the fault of device-drivers and everyone should switch to their funky new way of loading modules. No-one seemed to think what Torvalds said was incorrect, even if they disagreed with his tone. I don't understand why people keep banging on about Poettering in this, previously finished, thread. The announcement was made by the OpenRC maintainer and applies equally to those running eudev as udev. That is, systems free of that individual's influence. Whatever anyone's opinion of the way he is taking things, and for the record I don't like systemd, this is a situation that arose without his help. -- Neil Bothwick Multitasking: Reading in the bathroom. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:16:50 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote: initramfs is the new /, for varying values of new since most distros have been doing it that way for well over a decade. Only it's not, since you're responsible for keeping it in sync with the main system. No I'm not, the kernel makefile takes care of that very nicely thank you very much. -- Neil Bothwick Hell: Filling out the paperwork to get into Heaven. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 11/10/2013 09:54, Steven J. Long wrote: On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:04:38AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: From that one single action this entire mess of separate /usr arose as folks discovered more and more reasons to consider it good and keep it around Yes you elide over that part, but it's central: there were more and more reasons to consider it good, and to use it. You said it. snip It has always been broken by design becuase it's a damn stupid idea that just happened to work by fluke. *cough* bullsh1t. IT and computing is rife with this kind of error. Indeed: and even more rife with a history of One True Way. So much so that it's a cliche. Somehow it's now seen as hip to be crap at your craft, unable to recognise an ABI, and cool to subscribe to N + 1 True Way, as that's an innovation on the old form of garbage. And yet GIGO will still apply, traditional as it may be. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate or accomplish with this. Oh my bad, I thought this was an informal discussion. On a formal level, I was correcting your assumption, presented as a fact, that the only reason root and /usr split has worked in the past is some sort of fluke. Further your conflation of basic errors in software design with a solution to anything at all: the same problems still go on wrt initramfs, only now the effort is fractured into polarised camps. All I see in all your responses is that you are railing against why things are no longer the way they used to be. That's just casting aspersions, so I'll treat it as beneath you. It's certainly beneath me. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
[gentoo-user] Re: Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:42:33AM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:36:02 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote: It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. Yeah and that's just vague crap without content ;) I bow to your superior expertise in that field :) Yup I have to filter out crap all day every day, usually crap I wrote. So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This is open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this really was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H would not have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too? No he's just a bit naive: he wants to believe the best of people and did not realise quite how sneaky Poettering is. No doubt he still doesn't. But I'm sure he never foresaw some of their shenanighans, such as claiming their newly inserted breakage was the fault of device-drivers and everyone should switch to their funky new way of loading modules. No-one seemed to think what Torvalds said was incorrect, even if they disagreed with his tone. I don't understand why people keep banging on about Poettering in this, previously finished, thread. You brought up the background, wrt Greg K-H. Regardless of how you feel, I'm not alone in considering Poettering's (and Seivers') behaviour underhanded. And all this stuff about the situation just arose is only true, if you accept Poettering's propaganda^W arguments as given. So yes, he's very relevant. Sorry for not keeping current with the threads; I'll not post any more to respect the deadline.. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
[gentoo-user] kde-4.11.2 update-mime-database or is this a new portage comfort?
Hi, I might be wrong but I can't remember this has happened earlier. When emerging the new kde-base/kde-meta-4.11.2 (about 250 packages here) portage runs update-mime-database /usr/share/mime many many times. Is this a new nuisance? Thanks for a comment, Helmut
Re: [gentoo-user] kde-4.11.2 update-mime-database or is this a new portage comfort?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Helmut Jarausch jarau...@igpm.rwth-aachen.de wrote: Is this a new nuisance? No, I've seen that for quite some time now -- Douglas J Hunley (doug.hun...@gmail.com) Twitter: @hunleyd Web: douglasjhunley.com G+: http://goo.gl/sajR3
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:27:59 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote: I don't understand why people keep banging on about Poettering in this, previously finished, thread. You brought up the background, wrt Greg K-H. Regardless of how you feel, I'm not alone in considering Poettering's (and Seivers') behaviour underhanded. You're not. While I'm loathe to use words like underhanded, I certainly don't like the direction things are taking with systemd. I'm not defending them, but I don't see this as their fault. The potential for breakage was always there, their way of dong things just found it sooner. And all this stuff about the situation just arose is only true, if you accept Poettering's propaganda^W arguments as given. So yes, he's very relevant. We''ll just have o disagree on his relevance here. the problem is that the split is arbitrary, there is no clear definition of what is and is not needed at boot time for all systems, and that is going to lead to incorrect decisions made with the best of intentions (not that I am accusing the previously mentioned of having those). -- Neil Bothwick I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Friday 11 Oct 2013 12:55:55 Neil Bothwick wrote: While I'm loathe to use words like underhanded, ... pedant Not loathe here but loath or even loth. /pedant (Just to help non-native speakers avoid confusion, you understand.) :-) -- Regards, Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:11:55 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: While I'm loathe to use words like underhanded, ... pedant Not loathe here but loath or even loth. /pedant Ouch! -- Neil Bothwick Mac screen message: Like, dude, something went wrong. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:37:53PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: initramfs is the new /, for varying values of new since most distros have been doing it that way for well over a decade. Only it's not, since you're responsible for keeping it in sync with the main system. And for making sure it has everything you need. And hoping they don't change incompatibly between root and initramfs. You have ALWAYS been responsible for keeping / in sync with /usr. ALWAYS. Putting / out of sync with /usr will almost definitely result in breakage for practically every use case where / and /usr have been separated. You cannot reliably upgrade one without the other. If anything, it's easier to keep an init thingy in sync with /usr than to keep / in sync with /usr because our init thingies have automated tools for calculating what to put in them. / does not, and the problem of deciding what goes there is harder than with an init thingy. Likewise, updating / without updating the init thingy, _if you dont know what you're doing_ is a recipe for trouble. Thus the analogy stands. -- This email is:[ ] actionable [x] fyi[ ] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
Re: [gentoo-user] kde-4.11.2 update-mime-database or is this a new portage comfort?
Excerpts from Helmut Jarausch's message of 2013-10-11 13:23:14 +0200: Hi, I might be wrong but I can't remember this has happened earlier. When emerging the new kde-base/kde-meta-4.11.2 (about 250 packages here) portage runs update-mime-database /usr/share/mime many many times. Is this a new nuisance? Thanks for a comment, Helmut I think it has always done so. However, it seems there's a bug [1] in shared-mime-info-1.2 which makes update-mime-database very much slower than it used to be. Perhaps that's why you noticed it only now. Stefano [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487504
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: PowerColor HD 7850 SCS3 silent
Am 10.10.2013 21:10, schrieb James: Hello, Well, I'm trying to reseach a 7850 slilent the silent video card on an Gentoo based GA-99FXA-UD3 mobo. I've had Asus Radeons HD 7750 in these mobo, and it is an outstanding bargain workstation. The PowerColor HD 7850 SCS3 seems to be getting really good reviews, for the cost. I think it now comes in a 2 GB of memory. This card says it is PCI-3.0 compliant. I cannot find if the mobo I have (GA-99FXA-UD3) has PCI 3 (16) ? that does not matter in any way. Will the card work anyway? Or should I wait until I get a PCI 3.0 based mobo? it will work. pcie is compatible between revisions. btw, it is PCIE not PCI. Completely different thing.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim
Am 11.10.2013 10:28, schrieb Steven J. Long: On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:35:58PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: wrong analogy and it goes down from here. Really. Ohh, but they are inspired on YOUR analogy, so guess how wrong yours was. your trolling is weak. And since I never saw anything worth reading posted by you, you are very close to plonk territory right now. If his analogies are weak, that's deliberate: to show that your analogy is just as weak. Irrespective of why /usr was first added, or that it was in fact what /home now is, it's proven useful in many contexts. That you don't accept that, won't convince anyone who's lived that truth. All you'll do is argue in circles about irrelevance. The setup of a separate /usr on a networked system was used in amongst other places a few swedish universities. seperate /usr on network has been used in a lot of places. So what? Does that prove anything? Nope, it doesn't. Er quite obviously it proves that a separate /usr can be useful. In fact so much so that all the benefits of the above setup are claimed by that god-awful why split usr is broken because we are dumbasses who got kicked out of the kernel and think that userspace doesn't need stability post, as if they never existed before, and could not exist without a rootfs/usr merge. Seriously, /var is a good candidate for a seperate partition. /usr is not. They both are. Not very convincing is it? Seriously, if you don't see the need for one, good for you. Just stop telling us what to think, will you? too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. Too bad separate /usr is much older than initramfs. too bad that initramfs and initrd are pretty good solutions to the problem of hidden breakage caused by seperate /usr. If you are smart enough to setup an nfs server, I suppose you are smart enough to run dracut/genkernelco. If you are smart enough to run dracut/genkernelco I suppose you are smart enough to see the wrongness of your initial statement too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. too bad I am right and you are and idiot. Originally, the name POSIX referred to IEEE Std 1003.1-1988, released in 1988. The family of POSIX standards is formally designated as IEEE 1003 and the international standard name is ISO/IEC 9945. The standards, formerly known as IEEE-IX, emerged from a project that began circa 1985. Richard Stallman suggested the name POSIX to the IEEE. The committee found it more easily pronounceable and memorable, so it adopted it That is from wikipedia. 1985/1988. When were LSB/FHS created again? FHS in 1994. Hm You really are obtuse. You should try to consider what *point* the other person is trying to make before you mouth off with superior knowledge that completely misses it. *plonk* ditto. AFAIC you're the one who pulled insults out, when in fact you were *completely* missing the point. Bravo. you know, I just reread this subthread and the other crap you just posted today. Complaining, insulting, being 'obtuse' - that describes you very well. Or not reading at all. Very well, I can live without your emails. Really, I can.
[gentoo-user] Re: OT: PowerColor HD 7850 SCS3 silent
Volker Armin Hemmann volkerarmin at googlemail.com writes: Will the card work anyway? Or should I wait until I get a PCI 3.0 based mobo? it will work. pcie is compatible between revisions. btw, it is PCIE not PCI. Completely different thing. Yeptired PCIe too. thx, James
Re: [gentoo-user] xorg-server update puzzle
131009 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:41 -0400, Philip Webb wrote: I haven't tried xorg-server without xorg-x11 in a while, but lots of those utilities are useful : xkill, xrandr ... . What are they useful for ? -- I can't do 'man' as they're not installed 'eix' simply shows the same URL for each ; is there anywhere I can look ? you can read man pages at http://linux.die.net Thanks : added to my notes. If you don't already use them, they probably aren't that useful to you :) The only one which mb useful is Xkill, but it comes with a big warning one can usually use Htop to id + kill rogue windows. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
[gentoo-user] using lvm without a partition of type linux LVM
The lvm handbook addendum is no longer and we are instead to use the software raid + lvm2 quick install guide. That guide makes a few partitions of type linux raid and then puts lvm on a mirrored set (more is done). I wasn't using raid so skipped that step and wound up with one partition as a pv in my single vg and created several lvs in that vg. So far so good. But I realized that the single partition that I used was of type linux instead of linux lvm as I had always done when following the lvm handbook addendum. So what, I've made plenty of mistakes before, and will surely make plenty more later. But the resulting system works perfectly! If this is risky; I can reinstall. But I wonder if any action is necessary. What do you think? allan
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: I don't like systemd, Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd. The three happiest months of my life were spent as a student in London in the summer of 1974, where I frequently heard the phrase I should have thought that you Only much later did I discover that such a benign phrase conveys the most severe form of British disapproval :( With belated apologies to my many kind Brit friends from 1974, I ask you to tell us WTF you dislike systemd, and use language that us Yanks can fscking unnerstand, got it, punk?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 10/11/2013 09:21 PM, walt wrote: On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: I don't like systemd, Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd. The three happiest months of my life were spent as a student in London in the summer of 1974, where I frequently heard the phrase I should have thought that you Only much later did I discover that such a benign phrase conveys the most severe form of British disapproval :( With belated apologies to my many kind Brit friends from 1974, I ask you to tell us WTF you dislike systemd, and use language that us Yanks can fscking unnerstand, got it, punk? What do his personal opinions regarding systemd have to do with separate / and /usr? It's just another one of many, many applications that migrated to /usr and added more inertia to de facto practice.
