subject:"\[gentoo\-user\] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie"

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:34:53 +0200
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:

 I disagree.

Can we agree to disagree?

 Your default position on things seems to be to favour the theoretical
 position over the reality. I'm the opposite, being a sysadmin and not
 a developer I'm a realist and not a theoretician. I work with the way
 things are and really only look at the theory when stuff is proven
 broken.

That I want my time to be spent useful is reality, not just theory;
until you can show me the invisible subscription state as well as the
Reply-To mungling are features, I keep my mailer fixed to unbreak that.

 What is currently happening is you are sending mails directly
 addressed to me so they do not get filtered and end up cluttering my
 already full inbox.

That is because you address me about this matter; if you weren't, I
wouldn't have sent you a single mail. Or perhaps one in a hundred days;
I consider the meta discussion brought up here to be more cluttering
than that uncertain single mail.

 You are breaking my filters.

Why do you filters allow list messages in your inbox?

 I do want you to fix your mailer so that you stop inconveniencing me.
 And I would *really* prefer not to have to tweak my filters to
 accommodate you. I'd rather you do that heavy lifting (on account of
 you causing it).

That list messages land in your inbox is caused by your filter and
mail client; as you can see per the example procmail rule, as well as
my mail client, neither of both do that here.

 Do you see what I'm getting at?

No; I don't see why I should stop following the mailing list etiquette,
start relying on possibly wasting time as well as break what is fixed.

But yes; for convenience, I've dropped you from CC.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:57:40 +0200
Matti Nykyri matti.nyk...@iki.fi wrote:

 I agree. I think it is arrogant to disturb lots of people that have
 done nothing to deserve it. People should be let to choose them self
 what they wanna do with their lives. If they wish to disengage some
 conversation, let them. Don't send them spam.

spam is send to a large number of recipients; I don't see how what is
discussing here is doing that, apart from extending this discussion.
It's not arrogant; it's a technical difference, which sets up different
approaches. That's why developers are requested to follow the etiquette.

 The ones who wish to participate will stay on the list and the ones
 seeking for an answer can browse the archives.

People that participate maybe are on the list and the ones seeking
for an answer might browse the archives. 

 Please respect other people.

Here's something that works for the both of us: Request someone to not
CC you in a follow-up mail when you catch them do it, they'll respect
that; that's a guarantee that we can be certain that you are subscribed.

That way; you respect that I want to spent my time to be guaranteed to
be useful, I respect that you don't want to be CC-ed in follow-up mails.

Similarly; if someone is off-list; it takes a single mail to keep me
from sending additional mails. As it clarifies a disengagement; that
unsubscribing is meant to be a disengagement, I can't find that rule...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:08:35 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:

 To the point about folks unsubscribing, if they do unsubscribe from
 the list, it may be because they got what they want and do NOT want
 any more messages.

Or it may be because they are tired of the flow of mails, but yet they
are still awaiting a reply; the only respectful guarantee that works
for the both of us is if the user states a solution was found and/or
addresses me to send no further emails, that gives guarantees.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-22 Thread Neil Bothwick

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:15:49 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:

 Here's something that works for the both of us: Request someone to not
 CC you in a follow-up mail when you catch them do it, they'll respect
 that; that's a guarantee that we can be certain that you are subscribed.

I tried that, you cc'd your response to me...

You are using Claws-Mail, it is easy to set up per-folder
configurations. I hit Reply, th reply goes to the list, I have to take
the specific step of using Reply to All to send you to copies of the
email.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The road to HAL is paved with good intentions.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-22 Thread thegeezer

On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 +
 thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote:

 the difficulty is that without knowing
 It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a
 short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly);
 that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind.

 It is even quite common practice and scriptable:

 git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ...

 In a similar way, I know Portage will get highlighting and a ^ indicator;
 without that being announced until release, here's a copy paste (note
 that what is above ^ would be colored in red, unwrapped to unbreak it):

 dev-lang/perl:0

   (dev-lang/perl-5.18.2:0/5.18::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in 
 by
 =dev-lang/perl-5.18* required by (virtual/perl-IO-1.280.0:0/0::gentoo, 
 ebuild scheduled for merge)
 ^  ^  
   
  

   (dev-lang/perl-5.16.3:0/5.16::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
 dev-lang/perl:0/5.16=[-build(-)] required by 
 (dev-perl/IO-Socket-SSL-1.967.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
   
   
 =dev-lang/perl-5.16* required by 
 (virtual/perl-libnet-1.230.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
 ^  ^  
   
 (and 19 more with the same problems)

 And of course, that's not the only change happening; dependency
 resolution will become faster, some slot operator bug fixes happened
 but caused regressions in released versions and thus more of such fixes 
 will be done, some no parents messages during slot conflict output 
 were nuked, ...

 If I can type that as part of this mail, people could follow logind.


On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 +
 thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote:

 the difficulty is that without knowing
 It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a
 short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly);
 that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind.

 It is even quite common practice and scriptable:

 git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ...

there's a slight misunderstanding here.
in a previous link on this list there was gnome developer that basically
said something like we can't document everything that gnome uses in
systemd/logind because the developers are ahead of us, so in case of
difference the source code is correct.
gnome is big.  really big.
so you'd have to diff logind to check for new features and then diff
gnome to find how gnome is using those features.

so my point over 5 weeks ago was not about the difficulty in _finding_
the changes, but about keeping track of those changes and implementing htem.
if you read the rest of the thread you will see that in a whole i was
arguing that it is disingenuous to suggest that gnome does not require
logind.

if you don't see that perhaps you could volunteer to add logind api
features to openRC ?

btw, why did you reply to me cc the list instead of replying to list ?
i'm on the list already and so because of that my reply-to-list is broken.
it's easy enough to copy and paste the email address but please don't do
that again.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-22 Thread thegeezer

On 03/22/2014 12:15 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 That way; you respect that I want to spent my time to be guaranteed to
 be useful, I respect that you don't want to be CC-ed in follow-up
 mails. Similarly; if someone is off-list; it takes a single mail to
 keep me from sending additional mails. As it clarifies a
 disengagement; that unsubscribing is meant to be a disengagement, I
 can't find that rule... 
equally we all want our time spent to be guaranteed useful.
i've just gone through 40+ messages twice.
please stop CC'ing - just send it to the list.
if someone unsubscribes from the list and thus doesn't see their answer
there are other ways they can find it.  it is their issue if they do not
see the answer, it is easy enough to send an email to the list saying
so long thanks for the fish, btw please send answers to x...@y.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-22 Thread thegeezer

On 03/22/2014 01:00 PM, thegeezer wrote:
 On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 +
 thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote:

 the difficulty is that without knowing
 It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a
 short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly);
 that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind.

 It is even quite common practice and scriptable:

 git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ...

 In a similar way, I know Portage will get highlighting and a ^ indicator;
 without that being announced until release, here's a copy paste (note
 that what is above ^ would be colored in red, unwrapped to unbreak it):

 dev-lang/perl:0

   (dev-lang/perl-5.18.2:0/5.18::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled 
 in by
 =dev-lang/perl-5.18* required by (virtual/perl-IO-1.280.0:0/0::gentoo, 
 ebuild scheduled for merge)
 ^  ^ 
  


   (dev-lang/perl-5.16.3:0/5.16::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
 dev-lang/perl:0/5.16=[-build(-)] required by 
 (dev-perl/IO-Socket-SSL-1.967.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
  

 =dev-lang/perl-5.16* required by 
 (virtual/perl-libnet-1.230.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
 ^  ^ 

 (and 19 more with the same problems)

 And of course, that's not the only change happening; dependency
 resolution will become faster, some slot operator bug fixes happened
 but caused regressions in released versions and thus more of such fixes 
 will be done, some no parents messages during slot conflict output 
 were nuked, ...

 If I can type that as part of this mail, people could follow logind.

 On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 +
 thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote:

 the difficulty is that without knowing
 It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a
 short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly);
 that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind.

 It is even quite common practice and scriptable:

 git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ...

 there's a slight misunderstanding here.
 in a previous link on this list there was gnome developer that basically
 said something like we can't document everything that gnome uses in
 systemd/logind because the developers are ahead of us, so in case of
 difference the source code is correct.
 gnome is big.  really big.
 so you'd have to diff logind to check for new features and then diff
 gnome to find how gnome is using those features.

 so my point over 5 weeks ago was not about the difficulty in _finding_
 the changes, but about keeping track of those changes and implementing htem.
 if you read the rest of the thread you will see that in a whole i was
 arguing that it is disingenuous to suggest that gnome does not require
 logind.

 if you don't see that perhaps you could volunteer to add logind api
 features to openRC ?

 btw, why did you reply to me cc the list instead of replying to list ?
 i'm on the list already and so because of that my reply-to-list is broken.
 it's easy enough to copy and paste the email address but please don't do
 that again.


sorry for the double length and content email. an accident with the copy
and paste.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-22 Thread Tanstaafl


On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:

How does one send email to*THIS*  list, without being subscribed in
the first place?  A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter.


I think that is the main and primary point.

I loathe lists that allow posts from non subscribers (spitlibreoffice 
users/spit), because it creates this exact problem.


But in those cases, it should be on those who wish to leech (ask 
questions/get help from the list without having to subscribe) to 
proactively get their answers, by reading the archives on the web, etc.


The burden absolutely should NEVER be on the list participants to try to 
figure out who needs to be individually CC'd on replies and who doesn't.


Of course, if someone asks a question on such a list, and they 
specifically mention they are not subscribed and ask to be directly 
CC'd, then that is the one case when doing so is ok. But to blindly do 
this to everyone on the list just to insure that your oh-so-valuable 
reply makes it to the OP is just the height of arrogance and conceit.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:00:59 +
thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote:

 [...] so my point over 5 weeks ago was not about the difficulty in
 _finding_ the changes,

Ah, thanks; I see.

 but about keeping track of those changes and implementing htem.

Here, I would agree with if you have a lot of other things to do; I
don't see this as a problem though for someone whom puts time apart to
do such a fork, keeping track is as easy as following two git logs.
Granted, understanding and implementing the changes is another story,
in which I again agree with you; I just wanted to point out they're not
hidden, they're just not announced, but it appears we agree on that.

 if you read the rest of the thread you will see that in a whole i was
 arguing that it is disingenuous to suggest that gnome does not
 require logind.

There is indeed an URL brought up early on, with which I agree with:

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/

There's also a more recent post that I think hasn't been brought up:

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/02/03/my-thoughts-on-the-default-init-system-for-debian-discussion

 if you don't see that perhaps you could volunteer to add logind api
 features to openRC ?

Well, I wish I could accomplish all these things; but I have other work
that I'm committing myself to, I've been thinking about a proof of
concept to point out it is possible but I haven't had the time to do it.

My past commits were spent on bringing MATE to the Portage tree; if I
would work on a logind implementation, there wouldn't be MATE.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:17 +
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:

 On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:15:49 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 
  Here's something that works for the both of us: Request someone to
  not CC you in a follow-up mail when you catch them do it, they'll
  respect that; that's a guarantee that we can be certain that you
  are subscribed.
 
 I tried that, you cc'd your response to me...

Well, it is new; this response has no CC.

 You are using Claws-Mail, it is easy to set up per-folder
 configurations. I hit Reply, th reply goes to the list, I have to take
 the specific step of using Reply to All to send you to copies of the
 email.

How to set this up per folder?

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:35:50 -0400
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

 On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
  How does one send email to*THIS*  list, without being subscribed in
  the first place?  A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter.
 
 I think that is the main and primary point.
 
 I loathe lists that allow posts from non subscribers
 (spitlibreoffice users/spit), because it creates this exact
 problem.

We could fix *THIS* list to not allow that to exist; given that change,
I'm fine with dropping CC on every mail on *THIS* list. Furthermore,
I've asked in another mail how to set this per folder in my mail
client; which should allow me to conform to the wishes of a list.

 But in those cases, it should be on those who wish to leech (ask 
 questions/get help from the list without having to subscribe) to 
 proactively get their answers, by reading the archives on the web,
 etc.

People participate in more than just this list; at that point, there's
a lot to check up with. It creates an information overflow; or
rather, too much to check up on. This is why notifications were
invented on various new and modern websites; though, given that mailing
list archives date from a while ago, such notifications are not yet
present on such services. Up to a point that the user is unaware of
that; even when using the web form where they had to fill in their
mail, 'cause why did they have to fill in their mail there anyway? 

 The burden absolutely should NEVER be on the list participants to try
 to figure out who needs to be individually CC'd on replies and who
 doesn't.

But given the technical difficulties, there is such a burden on us;
that's why it is part of the mailing list etiquette that I follow and
are requested to follow by other Gentoo developers.

 Of course, if someone asks a question on such a list, and they 
 specifically mention they are not subscribed and ask to be directly 
 CC'd, then that is the one case when doing so is ok.

If they are aware; but see my response to leeching, are they aware?

 But to blindly do this to everyone on the list just to insure that
 your oh-so-valuable reply makes it to the OP is just the height of
 arrogance and conceit.

This isn't done blindly; I check up the rules and FAQ prior to do doing
it, as well as listen to participants that warn me early. In this case,
for the Gentoo mailing lists, the mailing list etiquette was brought to
my attention and therefore I have been CC-ing for hundreds of e-mails
without any remarks (and most people just repsond), to be surprised
that a whole discussion about it is started here. It isn't arrogance or
conceit; rather, it is being consistent and following etiquette.

You should note that the early part of this discussion is based on one
or two individuals that appear as inconsistent; however, given there
are more people that voice this now, _I am concerned_ to change it
specifically for those who request it and we could solve the technical
difficulty by reducing the problem by requesting off-list replies to be
disallowed and/or adapting the mail to new subscribers to mention that
if they want to be CC-ed that they should explicitly mention that.

Yes, I am inconsistent with *THIS* mailing list; let's change things to
make such inconsistency unnecessary, to fix this forever and always.

Otherwise we'll continue to get responses like these

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/273297

while we could just make those do not ... no longer necessary.

Sorry for the hassle and thanks for the understanding.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-22 Thread luis jure


el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió:

 How to set this up per folder?
 
rigth-click on the folder, Properties... - Compose - default to:

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:28:25 -0300
luis jure l...@internet.com.uy wrote:

 
 el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió:
 
  How to set this up per folder?
  
 rigth-click on the folder, Properties... - Compose - default
 to:

Thank you very much +1; I see some other features there too that can be
handy, eg. subject RegExp simplification.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:38:54 +0100
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:

 On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:28:25 -0300
 luis jure l...@internet.com.uy wrote:
 
  
  el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió:
  
   How to set this up per folder?
   
  rigth-click on the folder, Properties... - Compose - default
  to:
 
 Thank you very much +1; I see some other features there too that can
 be handy, eg. subject RegExp simplification.

Okay, the CCs have been removed; to anyone else wondering how to do,
you can tick the box of the field (here: CC) you want to drop and then
leave the textbox empty, that way clicking on All will not CC people.

Now I really hope the amount of people not aware of replies is small...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-22 Thread Dale

Tanstaafl wrote:
 On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
 How does one send email to*THIS*  list, without being subscribed in
 the first place?  A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter.

 I think that is the main and primary point.

 I loathe lists that allow posts from non subscribers
 (spitlibreoffice users/spit), because it creates this exact problem.

 But in those cases, it should be on those who wish to leech (ask
 questions/get help from the list without having to subscribe) to
 proactively get their answers, by reading the archives on the web, etc.

 The burden absolutely should NEVER be on the list participants to try
 to figure out who needs to be individually CC'd on replies and who
 doesn't.

 Of course, if someone asks a question on such a list, and they
 specifically mention they are not subscribed and ask to be directly
 CC'd, then that is the one case when doing so is ok. But to blindly do
 this to everyone on the list just to insure that your oh-so-valuable
 reply makes it to the OP is just the height of arrogance and conceit.




Exactly.  I been on this list about a decade now.  In that time, I have
seen maybe a handful of people that requested a CC.  I seem to vaguely
recall one that couldn't access his regular email program, using
different computer or something I guess, and didn't want to subscribe
with the email addy he was currently using.  The folks that were helping
him did CC him since in that case, he needed it.  That was a really long
time ago.  In recent history tho, I don't recall anyone requesting a CC
at all.  If they did, it was on a thread that I did not read.  I usually
at least try to read the first post to see if I can be of help. 

It seems that after burning a few bridges tho, this one finally
understood the point.  Time will tell I guess.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-22 Thread Neil Bothwick

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:52:56 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:

  Thank you very much +1; I see some other features there too that can
  be handy, eg. subject RegExp simplification.  
 
 Okay, the CCs have been removed; to anyone else wondering how to do,
 you can tick the box of the field (here: CC) you want to drop and then
 leave the textbox empty, that way clicking on All will not CC people.
 
 Now I really hope the amount of people not aware of replies is small...

If they do, it's their fault. Posting a question to this list and not
bothering to wait for a response is just plain rude, especially when
people go to the trouble of trying to help.

I'm not saying that is how all lists work, on some the CC makes sense,
but this list isn't like that, so thank you for recognising it and
conforming to the accepted behaviour.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I teleported home one night
With Ron and Sid and Meg.
Ron stole Meggie's heart away
And I got Sidney's leg.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:23:05 -0400
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

 On 3/20/2014 4:00 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
  On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400
  Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
  OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be.
 
  Do you have a source that backs up this claim?
 
 Are you seriously challenging the FACT that OpenRC is the default
 init system in gentoo?

Depends on how you define default; because as far as can be seen,
it is by consequence rather than by decision.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

 On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
 
 Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.
 
 I am on the list and don't need two copies.

 Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
 my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.

Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email
program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given that email
programs don't provide a function to do this selectively.

For more insight:

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:32:28 +
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:

 A login daemon should be started by the init system, not be an
 integral part of it. What happens when logind no longer fulfils
 developers needs, as is the case with ConsoleKit now, how can it be
 replaced with an improved service when it is so closely tied to the
 init system.

It is started by the init system, as evidenced by the presence of
systemd-logind.service as well as there being a separate systemd-logind
executable; it is simply replaced by not starting the service, instead,
starting another service that fits those needs.

Also: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/configure.ac#n798

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:54:55 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

 On Sun, February 16, 2014 22:16, Canek PelÃ¡ez ValdÃ©s wrote:
  On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
  volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
  oh? I can pipe that output into cat or any any daemon I like?
  Doesn't look like so.
 
  But it does, you can cat with journalctl; it's one of its output
  options:
 
 -o, --output=
 cat
 generates a very terse output only showing the actual
  message of each journal entry with no meta data, not even a
  timestamp.
 
 As I do not have systemd installed on any machine, I can't check the
 man-pages.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/man

 But, if that is the only method to get parseable text from journalctl,
 then that is less then useless.

Why? There are other output methods. See the man pages...

 I would expect an export option providing the same detail level as I
 currently find in /var/log/messages.

That's what you can control with the various options of -o.

 A timestamp is a minimum required for logging system output.

Depends on how you are processing that output.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:50:07 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

 It all sounds too much like the MS Windows Event-viewer to me.
 Too many events with no usefull logging information (And I am
 referring to OS-level messages as to why default services are not
 starting)

The MS Windows Event-viewer has very nice filtering capabilities;
beyond that, the detailed information gives you the error code that you
can look up in the documentation.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:00:43 +0400
Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru wrote:

 I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated
 into any existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility
 or just practical uselessness?

A lot of it is being integrated in some as we speak; however, other init
systems are slow to catch up. In the last two months; as you can see,
there haven't been meaningful commits to OpenRC other than small
documentation fixes. The shortlog allows me to see the entire last year.

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/openrc.git;a=log
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/openrc.git;a=shortlog

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:57:06 -0500
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

 Getting the Gentoo Council behind this idea, and providing an
 officially supported - or maybe a better term is *mandated* - process
 whereby systemd proponents can create and then maintain new systemd
 versions of any existing profiles.
 
 I guess maybe it is time to go open a bug about this?
 
 I would be happy to do this, but maybe it would be better if someone
 who has much more knowledge of the inner workings of the Gentoo
 Council and whatever process governs things like this to do it?

Wait on the gentoo-project ML for a mail gathering agenda items; once
that happens, reply to it clearly explaining your request and what you
would want them to discuss or vote on. Then you can watch and/or
participate in the next meeting (they announce when that is there)
and/or read up about their decision in the log and/or summary as they
come online; for further details, you can read up here:

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread J. Roeleveld

On 21 March 2014 12:24:04 CET, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:54:55 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

 On Sun, February 16, 2014 22:16, Canek PelÃ¡ez ValdÃ©s wrote:
  On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
  volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
  oh? I can pipe that output into cat or any any daemon I like?
  Doesn't look like so.
 
  But it does, you can cat with journalctl; it's one of its output
  options:
 
 -o, --output=
 cat
 generates a very terse output only showing the
actual
  message of each journal entry with no meta data, not even a
  timestamp.
 
 As I do not have systemd installed on any machine, I can't check the
 man-pages.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/man

 But, if that is the only method to get parseable text from
journalctl,
 then that is less then useless.

Why? There are other output methods. See the man pages...

 I would expect an export option providing the same detail level as I
 currently find in /var/log/messages.

That's what you can control with the various options of -o.

 A timestamp is a minimum required for logging system output.

Depends on how you are processing that output.

Tom,

Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list.

Also, no need to reopen a closed mail thread with replies that re-iterate 
already mentioned information. Canek said the same in his replies.

--
Joost
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

 Tom,
 
 Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list.

Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this.

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

 Also, no need to reopen a closed mail

A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not
reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply.

 thread with replies that re-iterate already mentioned information.
 Canek said the same in his replies.

Yes, I saw that after sending this mail; for most replies I do I check
up on it in advance, in this case I missed and/or forgot. Sorry.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

 On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:

 Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.

 I am on the list and don't need two copies.

 Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
 my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.
 Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email
 program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given that email
 programs don't provide a function to do this selectively.

 For more insight:

 http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
 http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html



So let's get this straight.  You want most everyone on this list to
change what they have to do to remove dups caused by you, instead of you
changing what you do to fix the problem?  To put it another way, you
want to inconvenience everyone else instead of doing things the way
everyone else does it and has done it for a long time? 

Here's a hint.  I can see a LOT of people adding you to their
blacklist.  You could very well end up talking to yourself on this
mailing list.  Why not send messages in html while at it?  That should
finish off you getting your messages read. 

Just something to think about. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S.  CC this message to me and I get a dup, I won't get the next one. 
I can fix the issue for you on a more permanent basis. 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread Neil Bothwick

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:

  Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
  my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.  
 
 Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email
 program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given that email
 programs don't provide a function to do this selectively.

Don't they? Then why did you only get one copy of this reply, via the
list? Most posters here do not have this problem, 

Of course, if you don't want people to bother reading your mails,
continue to piss them off.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

C Error #011: First C Program, huh?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread J. Roeleveld

On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100
 J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

 Tom,

 Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list.

 Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this.

I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts.
Please provide the correct syntax I need to do this.

You are the only one causing duplicate emails, all others on this list do
NOT cause duplicate emails.
This means the cause is on your side and the solution should then also be
on your side.

 http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
 http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the opposite
versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are broken. Mailing
lists where I always end up with duplicate replies don't stay used by
myself for very long.

 Also, no need to reopen a closed mail

 A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not
 reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply.

True, but a mail-thread that hasn't had a reply for over a month is
usually considered closed. It's nice that you decide to catch up with your
emails, but please then take care not to flood inboxes as well.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:10:49 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:

 So let's get this straight.  You want most everyone on this list to
 change what they have to do to remove dups caused by you, instead of
 you changing what you do to fix the problem?

Everyone else is okay with it, as only one in a thousand speaks up
about it; the problem rather is with that 0.1% than that it is with me,
as I just use mailing lists as they are supposed to be used.

 To put it another way, you want to inconvenience everyone else
 instead of doing things the way everyone else does it and has done it
 for a long time? 

That's what the Reply-To header mungling does; it makes you unable to
tell me through the Reply-To header what you want, and as a result I
need to use the default than to be able to automatically respect it.

As can be seen, that is an automatic guarantee that it will reach you.

Just as well as the automatic guarantee that the same Message ID is the
same message; and thus, your mail client should be filtering duplicates.

 Here's a hint.  I can see a LOT of people adding you to their
 blacklist.  You could very well end up talking to yourself on this
 mailing list.

Here's a hint. Lots of people appear to respond to me.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:27:09 +
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:

 On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 
   Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case,
   delete my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.  
  
  Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your
  email program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given
  that email programs don't provide a function to do this selectively.
 
 Don't they? Then why did you only get one copy of this reply, via the
 list? Most posters here do not have this problem, 

Did I receive a reply? Who says I am even subscribed to the list?

 Of course, if you don't want people to bother reading your mails,
 continue to piss them off.

All I'm doing is making sure this message gets to you; every notion you
give to it beyond that, is what that 0.1% thinks of it. Not my problem.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread Poison BL.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
 On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:27:09 +
 Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:

 On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:

   Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case,
   delete my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.
 
  Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your
  email program or procmail; these requests aren't remembered, given
  that email programs don't provide a function to do this selectively.

 Don't they? Then why did you only get one copy of this reply, via the
 list? Most posters here do not have this problem,

 Did I receive a reply? Who says I am even subscribed to the list?

 Of course, if you don't want people to bother reading your mails,
 continue to piss them off.

 All I'm doing is making sure this message gets to you; every notion you
 give to it beyond that, is what that 0.1% thinks of it. Not my problem.

 --
 With kind regards,

 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
 Gentoo Developer

 E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
 GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
 GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Just my 2c as one of the others who doesn't generally reply to what,
at face value, seemed an awful lot more combative/trolling of a tone
than actually useful (disregard != compliance on the internet),
fighting on the topic of 'proper use of mailing lists' when you're
standing in stark contrast to the configuration of the mailing list
you're using to do it, and in the process, telling everyone (many of
which have been around here helping other users for many, many, years)
that they're wrong for using the list they've been using in the manner
they've been using it... when I see your name appear the first time as
long ago as last Dec., is rather on the arrogant side at the least
(I'm not certain if you've been around -dev or another longer, as I
don't believe I'm subscribed on that one). If you're really hellbent
on getting the configuration of the list changed, feel free to take it
up with the person who configures the list, rather than approaching it
by being condescending to the people who consistently use it.

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:41:54 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

Tom,

Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list.

Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this.

I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts.
Please provide the correct syntax I need to do this.

The vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension can be used to do this, RFC:

http://hg.rename-it.nl/dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole/raw-file/tip/doc/rfc/spec-bosch-sieve-duplicate.txt

It is designed exactly for this purpose, quote from the introduction:

Duplicate deliveries are a common side-effect of being subscribed
to a mailing list.

Example correct syntax:

require [vnd.dovecot.duplicate, fileinto, mailbox];

if duplicate {
fileinto :create Trash/Duplicate;
}

This will move duplicates to Trash/Duplicate, given that you enable the
vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension; I use a similar rule in procmail.

You are the only one causing duplicate emails, all others on this
list do NOT cause duplicate emails.

That's because some people here are users that don't commonly use
bigger mailing lists and thus have no such filter in place; however,
when you get to participate in bigger mailing lists, you will get such
duplicate mails by design if you don't have a filter. Take for example
the LKML, where it is common practice that relevant mailing lists as
well as individuals are CC-ed; you'll get a dupe as one of either.

Being the sender of a message, however, some mailing lists allow you to
control whether you want to be CC-ed; this can be done by setting a
Reply-To header, but in this case it is always overridden which
removes the ability to guarantee you'll receive the message.

There are other participants on the Gentoo mailing lists that
participate in other mailing lists too; and when met with Reply-To
mungling, they do the same approach. eg. Michał Górny (mgorny)

This means the cause is on your side and the solution should then
also be on your side.

The goal is to ensure people receive their mail; if I were to make a
solution on my sight, it voids that goal as the guarantee is gone.

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the
opposite versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are
broken. Mailing lists where I always end up with duplicate replies
don't stay used by myself for very long.

Given a present filter, I use any mailing list; I don't let technical
differences in the software being used overcome the ability to state
something on a mailing list, and if a technical difference does matter
to someone (0.1% in this case) I expect them to adapt. This ain't a
place where One True Way is to be enforced; as you can see, I very
well consider the standard reply button to be broken...

Also, no need to reopen a closed mail

A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not
reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply.

True, but a mail-thread that hasn't had a reply for over a month is
usually considered closed. It's nice that you decide to catch up with
your emails, but please then take care not to flood inboxes as well.

Similar to above, right click and ignore thread could be used as
well as sort / group by thread; as without both features, there's no
dam in place to avoid the flood from happening.

As for the river / sea, there's no way to convince the river / sea to
go away; it'll be there, even if you could use a bucket to remove me,
there'll be another person or so tomorrow.

In comparison, on the LKML you will get replies one or more months
later; if you there then reply claiming a thread is closed, it'll be
perceived as everything but that...

--
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:13:27 -0400
Poison BL. poiso...@gmail.com wrote:

 fighting on the topic of 'proper use of mailing lists' when you're
 standing in stark contrast to the configuration of the mailing list
 you're using to do it,

Which fight? It is a short notice as to why it is being done, as well
as what can be done to make a change. Convincing individually isn't.

 and in the process, telling everyone (many of which have been around
 here helping other users for many, many, years) that they're wrong
 for using the list they've been using in the manner they've been
 using it...

Words are being turned around here, I've never said someone is wrong;
however, I provided filtering as an option to them to consider.

 when I see your name appear the first time as long ago as
 last Dec., is rather on the arrogant side at the least (I'm not
 certain if you've been around -dev or another longer, as I don't
 believe I'm subscribed on that one).

There are more mailing lists and communication mediums; the reason
I've not replied much in this one since last year, is because I've let
this inbox grow to ~1000 unread mails or so which I'm progressing now.

 If you're really hellbent on getting the configuration of the list
 changed, feel free to take it up with the person who configures the
 list, rather than approaching it by being condescending to the people
 who consistently use it.

That's for those that have a problem with it to do; as well a getting
it confirmed that a certain way of responding is required, there's been
nothing said about it when mails of mine went out to persons from the
infrastructure team on the gentoo-dev ML and neither by other devs.

Developers recommend each other to use a rule, and everyone uses it;
it might be a side effect of procmail being available on our dev SSH,
but in any case it works out well for every developer, see this link:

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Procmail

The mailing list etiquette requires people to CC all the people
involved in a particular thread in replies to the mailing list, in case
any of them is not subscribed.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread J. Roeleveld

On Fri, March 21, 2014 14:20, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:41:54 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

Tom,

Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list.

Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this.

I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts.
Please provide the correct syntax I need to do this.

The vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension can be used to do this, RFC:

http://hg.rename-it.nl/dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole/raw-file/tip/doc/rfc/spec-bosch-sieve-duplicate.txt

It is designed exactly for this purpose, quote from the introduction:

Duplicate deliveries are a common side-effect of being subscribed
to a mailing list.

Example correct syntax:

require [vnd.dovecot.duplicate, fileinto, mailbox];

if duplicate {
fileinto :create Trash/Duplicate;
}

Is that one included in the Cyrus ebuild?

This will move duplicates to Trash/Duplicate, given that you enable the
vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension; I use a similar rule in procmail.

I ONLY want duplicates that would end up in my inbox to be filtered.
If an email is sent to 2 or more mailing lists, they should end up in each
relevant mailing list folder.

You are the only one causing duplicate emails, all others on this
list do NOT cause duplicate emails.

With LKML, most people don't stay subscribed for very long as their
mailboxes overflow. On this list, the general consensus is that you reply
to list only unless specifically requested otherwise.

I am subscribed, so no need to add me to the CC.
If I am really interested in the reply and I would not be in the list, I
would check the archives, which are updated fast enough for the purpose.

There are other participants on the Gentoo mailing lists that
participate in other mailing lists too; and when met with Reply-To
mungling, they do the same approach. eg. MichaÅ GÃ³rny (mgorny)

This means the cause is on your side and the solution should then
also be on your side.

The goal is to ensure people receive their mail; if I were to make a
solution on my sight, it voids that goal as the guarantee is gone.

The goal only makes sense when replying to emails that are still relevant.
A discussion that is over a month old is usually no longer relevant.
Especially if the email only contains information that already was sent.

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

Still waiting for a filter that works on my server.

Also, no need to reopen a closed mail

A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not
reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply.

Similar to above, right click and ignore thread could be used as
well as sort / group by thread; as without both features, there's no
dam in place to avoid the flood from happening.

Filtering out your emails fully also would avoid this happening.

As for the river / sea, there's no way to convince the river / sea to
go away; it'll be there, even if you could use a bucket to remove me,
there'll be another person or so tomorrow.

On this list, you (people who insist on CC-ing the world) are the minority.

In comparison, on the LKML you will get replies one or more months
later; if

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:06:12 +0100
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:

 Is that one included in the Cyrus ebuild?

In Cyrus it is an actual feature, see the (first) FAQ[1] entry about
Duplicate Delivery Surpression; in imapd.conf you can do

duplicatesuppression: 1

to enable this. It might be that because this is an actual feature that
the extension isn't implemented; unpacking the source tarball, then
insensitive case grepping for 'dupl', I only find the above feature.

 [1]: https://cyrusimap.org/mediawiki/index.php/FAQ

 I ONLY want duplicates that would end up in my inbox to be filtered.
 If an email is sent to 2 or more mailing lists, they should end up in
 each relevant mailing list folder.

The procmail filter we have neatly does this by checking the List-Id
header; maybe this can be mimicked in a Sieve rule, the rule is simple.

 With LKML, most people don't stay subscribed for very long as their
 mailboxes overflow. On this list, the general consensus is that you
 reply to list only unless specifically requested otherwise.

It's possible to stay subscribed with strict filtering, its
reading volume to me is in terms of unread mail currently 5 times as
much as this ML; however, I scroll more through the mails there than I
do here which makes the effort to process both nearly equal.

With a higher amount of mailing lists to follow I don't keep a list of
exceptions; and therefore, to keep it simple, do the same everywhere.

Information overflow stays manageable for me if I keep things simple;
if I however would start to add manual matching techniques to that, it
would become much more unmanageable as instead of being effective I
suddenly start doing something what our software is supposed to do.

 I am subscribed, so no need to add me to the CC.

As said above, I could put this on a list; but I'll forget about it.

 If I am really interested in the reply and I would not be in the
 list, I would check the archives, which are updated fast enough for
 the purpose.

That is only so if you expect and/or are aware of the reply.
 
 The goal only makes sense when replying to emails that are still
 relevant. A discussion that is over a month old is usually no longer
 relevant.

Not much has changed since then; and thus, it is still recent enough.
 
 Filtering out your emails fully also would avoid this happening.

It is quite effective.
 
  As for the river / sea, there's no way to convince the river / sea
  to go away; it'll be there, even if you could use a bucket to
  remove me, there'll be another person or so tomorrow.
 
 On this list, you (people who insist on CC-ing the world) are the
 minority.

On this world, this list (where people that I can count on my fingers
insist on not being CC-ed) is a minority.

Regardless of both being a minority, they'll continue to be present.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

J. Roeleveld wrote:
 I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts. Please provide the
 correct syntax I need to do this. You are the only one causing
 duplicate emails, all others on this list do NOT cause duplicate
 emails. This means the cause is on your side and the solution should
 then also be on your side.
 http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
 http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
 I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the opposite
 versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are broken. Mailing
 lists where I always end up with duplicate replies don't stay used by
 myself for very long.


+1  This is no different than a person sending a HTML email.  This
mailing list doesn't like them and it is the sender that should change
their settings to stop it from happening.  We may make exceptions for
those using cell phones who can not change it but when it can be changed
by the sender, it should be changed by them. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:10:49 -0500
 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:

 So let's get this straight.  You want most everyone on this list to
 change what they have to do to remove dups caused by you, instead of
 you changing what you do to fix the problem?
 Everyone else is okay with it, as only one in a thousand speaks up
 about it; the problem rather is with that 0.1% than that it is with me,
 as I just use mailing lists as they are supposed to be used.

FYI.  Most people don't say anything, they just blacklist you.  After
that, you don't exist to them. 


 To put it another way, you want to inconvenience everyone else
 instead of doing things the way everyone else does it and has done it
 for a long time? 
 That's what the Reply-To header mungling does; it makes you unable to
 tell me through the Reply-To header what you want, and as a result I
 need to use the default than to be able to automatically respect it.

 As can be seen, that is an automatic guarantee that it will reach you.

 Just as well as the automatic guarantee that the same Message ID is the
 same message; and thus, your mail client should be filtering duplicates.


To my knowledge, the only emails I have not got when someone sent to
this mailing list is when the mailing list server had problems and that
was a long long time ago.  You send a email to the list and the list
gets the email.  There is NO need to CC everyone so that they get dups. 
Period.  We don't need a CC guarantee. 


 Here's a hint.  I can see a LOT of people adding you to their
 blacklist.  You could very well end up talking to yourself on this
 mailing list.
 Here's a hint. Lots of people appear to respond to me.


This is a COMMUNITY effort here and you seem to not want to be a part of
the community.  When I first came here, my email program sent html.  I
was told that HTML is not appreciated here.  Some even provided examples
of why it is not appreciated.  I asked how to change that, I was given
the help needed to change it and I have made sure that it remained that
way since.  There was a point in time where I changed software and
couldn't find the setting.  I asked if anyone knew where it was and got
the help needed to get it set back to plain text, as EVERYONE else does
on this list. 

If you don't want to be here by the standards set, say good bye.  I'm
trying to help you by telling you this.  People will blacklist you and
never say a word about it.  I suspect quite a few already has.  It would
be wise to change your way of handling this list or you will lose. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread Tanstaafl


On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:


On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:

Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.

I am on the list and don't need two copies.

Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.


Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email
program or procmail;


Fuck you Tom.

PLONK THE ARROGANT PRICK.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

Poison BL. wrote:
 Just my 2c as one of the others who doesn't generally reply to what,
 at face value, seemed an awful lot more combative/trolling of a tone
 than actually useful (disregard != compliance on the internet),
 fighting on the topic of 'proper use of mailing lists' when you're
 standing in stark contrast to the configuration of the mailing list
 you're using to do it, and in the process, telling everyone (many of
 which have been around here helping other users for many, many, years)
 that they're wrong for using the list they've been using in the manner
 they've been using it... when I see your name appear the first time as
 long ago as last Dec., is rather on the arrogant side at the least
 (I'm not certain if you've been around -dev or another longer, as I
 don't believe I'm subscribed on that one). If you're really hellbent
 on getting the configuration of the list changed, feel free to take it
 up with the person who configures the list, rather than approaching it
 by being condescending to the people who consistently use it. 

+1  I see Tom being on a lot of peoples black list.  He's burning bridges. 

I been here since 2003 or 2004 if I recall correctly.  When I first came
here, I conformed my settings to what the people on this list wanted and
expected.  I was told the same thing people are telling Tom now. 
Failure to listen and adapt is not going to go well for Tom.  It seems
Tom wants everyone else to change because he refuses too and on top of
that, he thinks no one will do anything if he doesn't. 

I'll give this a day or two.  If it doesn't change, bye Tom.  That won't
just be for this list but also every Gentoo list you are on including -dev.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

Tanstaafl wrote:
 On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
 On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

 On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:

 Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.

 I am on the list and don't need two copies.

 Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
 my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.

 Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email
 program or procmail;

 Fuck you Tom.

 PLONK THE ARROGANT PRICK.




There goes one.  Tom, you ever wonder how many people are doing the same
but not saying anything? 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:41:03 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:

 FYI.  Most people don't say anything, they just blacklist you.  After
 that, you don't exist to them. 

Yes, that's up to those few; it could happen, but most respond instead.

 To my knowledge, the only emails I have not got when someone sent to
 this mailing list is when the mailing list server had problems and
 that was a long long time ago.  You send a email to the list and the
 list gets the email.  There is NO need to CC everyone so that they
 get dups. Period.

There is a need, see the previous mails about it; the need stays as is.

 We don't need a CC guarantee. 

I do, as I spend time on this; that time should have guaranteed results.

 This is a COMMUNITY effort here and you seem to not want to be a part
 of the community.

If it were true, I would stop my contributions and support here and now.

 If you don't want to be here by the standards set, say good bye.

The etiquette is the standard that I follow, it encourages this; it
is stepping away from that etiquette and thus results in good bye:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/273297

Consider that each time you tell some user to not CC or so on the ML,
you're actually sending an extra mail to a ton of people yourself;
whereas the mail telling that ignores the subject of the thread,
please consider to do this in an off-list reply with positive words.

 I'm trying to help you by telling you this.  People will blacklist
 you and never say a word about it.  I suspect quite a few already
 has.  It would be wise to change your way of handling this list or
 you will lose. 

And others try to help me by telling the opposite; so, when two
groups of people tell you to do something that conflicts, which one
would be picked? Well, pick the one that respects our etiquette; and
along that, the same one guarantees that my time is spent wise.

Similarly, would you spend time to keep asking this everytime it happens
by one or another individual or just simply filter it once and for all?

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread Alan McKinnon

On 21/03/2014 20:23, Dale wrote:
 Tanstaafl wrote:
 On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
 On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

 On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:

 Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.

 I am on the list and don't need two copies.

 Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
 my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.

 Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email
 program or procmail;

 Fuck you Tom.

 PLONK THE ARROGANT PRICK.


 
 
 There goes one.  Tom, you ever wonder how many people are doing the same
 but not saying anything? 


Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all.

You can't possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the
meantime Dale, I think you are projecting.

Chill out brother, chill out. Plenty stuff in the world more deserving
of attention than this.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread Walter Dnes

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:29:48PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote

 http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Procmail
 
 The mailing list etiquette requires people to CC all the people
 involved in a particular thread in replies to the mailing list, in case
 any of them is not subscribed.

  How does one send email to *THIS* list, without being subscribed in
the first place?  A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter.  A web
form bug submission goes to a list, which the submitter is probably not
subscribed to.  Developers do need to CC their replies to the original
submitter to let them know what's happening.  But I'm not aware of any
such mechanism on this list.  If someone is involved in a thread here,
then they've obviously subscribed here.  So the CC: is redundant.

  Speaking of procmail+formail, I use them to tame the lists that follow
Chip Rosenthal's ideas.  E.g., if this list did that, I would use...

:0 fhw
* ^X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org
* !^Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org
  | formail -i Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org (Gentoo users)

  I do this to the few lists I run into that I want/need, which blindly
follow Chip's ideas.

-- 
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-21 Thread Alan McKinnon

On 21/03/2014 23:57, Walter Dnes wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:29:48PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote
 
 http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Procmail

 The mailing list etiquette requires people to CC all the people
 involved in a particular thread in replies to the mailing list, in case
 any of them is not subscribed.
 
   How does one send email to *THIS* list, without being subscribed in
 the first place?  A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter.  A web
 form bug submission goes to a list, which the submitter is probably not
 subscribed to.  Developers do need to CC their replies to the original
 submitter to let them know what's happening.  But I'm not aware of any
 such mechanism on this list.  If someone is involved in a thread here,
 then they've obviously subscribed here.  So the CC: is redundant.
 
   Speaking of procmail+formail, I use them to tame the lists that follow
 Chip Rosenthal's ideas.  E.g., if this list did that, I would use...
 
 :0 fhw
 * ^X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org
 * !^Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org
   | formail -i Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists\.gentoo\.org (Gentoo users)
 
   I do this to the few lists I run into that I want/need, which blindly
 follow Chip's ideas.
 


Chip Rosenthal? yeah, he's the Reply-To munging considered harmful fellow

Trouble is, he argues from a theoretical position and ignores what
people actually do with lists. There's two main uses:

1. a distribution mechanism to reach all subscribers and/or where you
don;t have to be subscribed to post. For these you really don't want to
munge Reply-To

2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list
so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all

gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussion always takes
place on-list. If some doc somewhere says otherwise, change the doc to
reflect reality.

I utterly fail to see why so many folks on the internet can't see why
there's two kinds of lists...   I think I'm going to compose an essay;

Chip Rosenthal and his detractors all considered harmful


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:57:07 -0400
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:

 How does one send email to *THIS* list, without being subscribed in
 the first place?

You can do that on sites like GMANE; similarly, given a message ID,
you can request that specific from the mailing list daemon to land in
your inbox, which allows you even do a signed reply to it.

As you can see; there are people that want to participate only when
they are interested in it, rather than flood their mailing program.

Let's say you have a bug when you unmount a filesystem; so, you go look
on the LKML if there's something known about it. You'll find:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1671264

The thing is; you're not subscribed as you found it, yet you want to
reply to it without subscribing to its flood, what do? You send off a
single reply; then you expect someone that responds to CC you if that
person wants to tell / ask you something, otherwise you wouldn't know.

 But I'm not aware of any such mechanism on this list.  If someone is
 involved in a thread here, then they've obviously subscribed here.
 So the CC: is redundant.

Invisible things are hard to be aware of; you assume that the person is
CC-ed, however, the person may have found the thread through GMANE _or_
the person might have been unsubscribed by the moment you make a reply.

We see similar things happen on IRC; someone asks a question, 2 or 3
minutes later they are gone. Sometimes they ask a question, but receive
no answer so they are gone 20 or 30 minutes later. Similarly; we're now
a month later in this ML thread, who says people are still subscribed?

On IRC, if you pay notice to the many join/part/quits and don't filter
them, you can still spot that with awareness; however, on ML you can't.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:

 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list
 so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all
 
 gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussion always takes
 place on-list. If some doc somewhere says otherwise, change the doc to
 reflect reality.

http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml mentions it is about support
too, and people that are here to be supported don't necessarily want to
follow the discussion that comes along as well; thus unsubscribe
before an answer or not subscribe at all in the first place, they then
instead rely on receiving a mail regardless of that.

CC-ing ensures that the minutes spent on the answer make it reach the
person; relying on that they are (still) subscribed, I can waste time.

See the most recent mail I sent before this for details.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

Alan McKinnon wrote:
 Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all. You can't
 possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the meantime
 Dale, I think you are projecting. Chill out brother, chill out. Plenty
 stuff in the world more deserving of attention than this. 

I fixed it now.  No more problems. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:41:03 -0500
 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:

 FYI.  Most people don't say anything, they just blacklist you.  After
 that, you don't exist to them. 
 Yes, that's up to those few; it could happen, but most respond instead.

I just read the last message from you Tom. 

Good bye.

Dale

:-)  :-) 


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:52:55 +0400
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:16:36 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
  On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
  volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
   Am 16.02.2014 21:08, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
   On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
   volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote:
   [ snip ]
   or it is an idiotic decision. Because features means complexity.
   Yeah, like the kernel.
  
   Complexity means bugs.
   Bugs get reported, bugs get fixes. Life goes on.
  
  You didn't answered this, did you?
 
 Bugs are different. Bugs in the critical system components are
 critical to the whole system. If Libreoffice or browser
 segfaults, some data may be lost and inconvenience created, but the
 system will continue to run. If PID 1 segfaults — everything is
 lost, you have a kernel panic. That's why critical components should
 be as simple and clean as possible.

If it does, but does it? We have run it for ages without a segfault.

 SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains
 about 13 000 lines, systemd — about 200 000 lines.

That is an unfair comparison, be fair and consider PID 1's code size.

 Even assuming systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though
 I doubt this) you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself
 easily.

Practical statistics are more reliable than theoretical probabilities.

   All of them are different tools providing one capability to
   systemd as a whole. So systemd is a collection of tools, where
   each one does one thing, and it does it well.
  
   By your definition, systemd perfectly follows the unix way.
  
  
   no, it isn't.
  
   How are those binaries talk to each other?
  
  dbus, which is about to be integrated into the kernel with kdbus.
 
 And this is a very, very bad idea. Looks like you don't know matter at
 all: to begin with kdbus protocol is NOT compatible dbus and special
 converter daemon will be needed to enable dbus to talk to kdbus.

That claims it to be a bad idea, but doesn't tell why; furthermore, no
technical reasoning as to why it is incompatible is given. Do you know?

 The whole kdbus technology is very questionable itself (and was
 forcefully pushed by RH devs), anyway it is possible to disable this
 stuff in kernel and guess what will be done on my systems.

Similar claims again, without any weight; that is subjective opinion.

   Looks broken. Broken by design. The worst form of broken.
  
  By your opinion, not others.
 
 That is not just an opinion. 

It is due to the lack of science and experience in your response.

 And all that science was ignored during systemd architecture process
 if there was any at all.

For it to be claimed as ignored, you need to know about the process;
given that you don't even know its presence, such claim can't be made.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:05:03 +0200
Gevisz gev...@gmail.com wrote:

 How can you be sure if something is large enough if, as you say
 below, you do not care about probabilities?

Statistics.

 If you do not care (= do not now anything) about probabilities
 (and mathematics, in general), you just unable to understand
 that debugging a program with 200K lines of code take
 
 20!/(1!)^20
 
 more time than debugging of 20 different programs with 10K lines of
 code. You can try to calculate that number yourself but I quite sure
 that if the latter can take, say, 20 days, the former can take
 millions of years.

Assuming PID 1 is 200K lines; however, it's a lot smaller than that.

 It is all the probability! Or, to be more precise, combinatorics.  

That's too precise; both of these are just a part of something bigger,
that big thing is called statistics, in theory you can hold yourself on
to probabilities, but in practice statistics will give you guarantees.

 Have you ever tried forex? If yes, you should have been warned
 that no past performance guarantee the future one.

 And if you do not believe that (and do not care about probability
 and all the stuff like that), you should visit any of the forex forums
 where you will be suggested a magical money winning strategy that, in
 the past, behaved very well and earned 200 or even 500% a month.

Same could be said about the opposite; seeing it in one way you would
want to ditch statistics with this statement, seeing it the other way
you would want to accept statistics with the opposite statement. It
effectively makes the statement lose its meaning in this context; as
said, statistics and the acceptance thereof is far more practical.

If you consider a segfault in PID1 or the kernel to be the end of the
world like losing tons of money, unless you run a critical appliance,
then you could reconsider the stability of the rest of your system.

Because in the end, you've put all your money in PID1 / kernel; whereas
the full picture includes a lot more than that (eg. core libraries),
so, a good winning strategy is to spare money for the rest out there.

(Where winning means preventing your world from falling apart)

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:56:53 +0200
Gevisz gev...@gmail.com wrote:

 No, by arguing that fixing bugs in a 200K line program is as easy as
 fixing a bug in 20 10K line programs. It is just not true, just the
 opposite. 

So, as systemd is modular per the biggest myth #6[1]; that means that,
PID 1 being something like a 10K line program, is easy to fix.

 [1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:06:33 +0400
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Real world code without mistakes and larger than Hello, world!
 exercises is not possible. Large systems must have error suppression
 and correction techniques, modular and replaceable design is one of
 them, KISS is another one. Systemd has none known to me.

systemd does have both, see myths #6 and #29 of the biggest myths.

 [1]: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

 This depends on what bug at what component occurred. Just imagine
 pid 1 segfault on medical life support equipment. With systemd going
 into embedded this is not just pure speculation, though, of course
 medical stuff should have extra safeguards. But any FT or at
 least HA setup is a combination of multiple layers. I do not want to
 allow badly broken core component on mine setups even if its faults
 may be compensated by other means.

That's assuming the target public of systemd is medical life support
equipment; however, that is certainly not the case which makes that an
irrelevant example in this context.

When talking about life critical support, you'll need to have proper
specification and checks to have a guarantee; we've seen the APL
language and Z notation early on in this field, as well as evolutions
from and beside that.

Most life critical systems are based on such things; throwing whatever
thing on such a system, like the first open-source project you can
find, is is not how such systems are made.

Faults, if they happen at all, being compensated imo suffices for non
life critical systems; if you want more, you know the languages,
notations, checking tools and other practices are out there to benefit
from. An init system and/or service manager based on life critical
support standards would definitely have my interest; however, I am
wondering if there's anyone that wants to spend his free time on that.

 Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask
 to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate systemd
 profile for those willing to use it.

They are there, `find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name '*systemd*'`.

   Sorry, but it's you who doesn't know the matter at hand: kdbus
   was (and is) written by Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus' right hand,
   and who works for the Linux Foundation.
  
   Lol, he seems to start to use the arguments like You even do not
   know my elder brother/acquaintance from the street nearby who can
   easily hit you down!
  
  If you don't think Greg's words have any weight in a Linux-related
  technical discussion, then I'm afraid we will need to agree to
  disagree on any technical subject.
 
 You know, common sense should always override person's prestige.
 History knows many examples. Sir Isaac Newton enforced corpuscular
 point of view on the light's nature. And while he was genius in other
 physical aspects, he was mistaken here. Albert Einstein was rejective
 to probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and even proposed an
 entangled particles paradox as an example of its flawed nature.
 Though as we know these days such systems exist and are quite well
 used in numerous experiments. My point is simple: do not blindly
 adhere to someone's words, even if this person has high authority.
 Common sense must prevail. Period.

+1

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:09:42 -0500
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

 I totally get XFCE *supporting* the use of logind, but why should it 
 ever support *only* logind? That would seem insane to me.

If it were a decision, and other decisions were possible without cost,
yes; however, this often happens as the result of a lack of manpower to
support multiple systems. Others aren't stopped from forking and/or
wrapping XFCE to (also) support other login facilities than logind;
well, under the assumption that they would limit their support...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 +
thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote:

 the difficulty is that without knowing

It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a
short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly);
that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind.

It is even quite common practice and scriptable:

git fetch ... ; git log ... ; git diff ...

In a similar way, I know Portage will get highlighting and a ^ indicator;
without that being announced until release, here's a copy paste (note
that what is above ^ would be colored in red, unwrapped to unbreak it):

dev-lang/perl:0

  (dev-lang/perl-5.18.2:0/5.18::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
=dev-lang/perl-5.18* required by (virtual/perl-IO-1.280.0:0/0::gentoo, 
ebuild scheduled for merge)
^  ^
 

  (dev-lang/perl-5.16.3:0/5.16::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
dev-lang/perl:0/5.16=[-build(-)] required by 
(dev-perl/IO-Socket-SSL-1.967.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    

=dev-lang/perl-5.16* required by (virtual/perl-libnet-1.230.0:0/0::gentoo, 
installed)
^  ^

(and 19 more with the same problems)

And of course, that's not the only change happening; dependency
resolution will become faster, some slot operator bug fixes happened
but caused regressions in released versions and thus more of such fixes 
will be done, some no parents messages during slot conflict output 
were nuked, ...

If I can type that as part of this mail, people could follow logind.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:46:42 +0200
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:

 eselect manages config options between different implementation of a
 thing. Usually by tweaking symlinks. Switching init OpenRC - SystemD
 involves resetting uSE flags and recompiling some fundamental stuff.
 That exercise is unlikely to ever go into eselect.

Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works.

 The devs on gentoo-dev already nuked the idea of a gentoo profile as
 such, it's not worth the effort and causes an explosion of profiles.

It's happening, `find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name '*systemd*'`; does
it have any consequences that are worth thinking through?

 Conceptually, it is rather similar to switching between nouveau and
 nvidia. That doesn't have eselect support[1] or profiles.

Well, running NVIDIA now I can reboot with a simple script[1] put
in /etc/local.d/nvidia.start (with execute permission); this works for
me on both OpenRC and systemd, I'd say it is easy to do. Perhaps it can
even be made more easy by rewriting the Xorg configuration to be device
aware and therefore not needing the steps shown in this script.

 [1]: https://gist.github.com/TomWij/a13abacfb74999c10957

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:33:43 +
thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote:

 Personally i'm most likely to stay with openRC, because the switch is
 non-trivial and have no faith in the xinetd-style socket arbitrator.

It should be trivial, it is here.

 but would eselect be able to script the following:
 .. new kernel coptions

Most of which you have already; beyond that, it's some minor
functionality that doesn't stop the switch itself from working afaik.

Only needs to be done once, not every time.

 .. new grub2 command line

A new entry with init=/usr/lib/systemd/system suffices and doesn't need
to be switchable; unless you want one entry and switch at runtime,
alternatively it is possible to emerge sys-apps/systemd-sysv-utils, or
simply change the symlink of /sbin/init and similar files yourself.

 .. install dbus (use=-systemd) _then_ systemd

Only needs to be done once, not every time.

 .. would be nice to use an import for localed and hostnamed and
 timedated .. importing openrc services and runlevels to targets

Would be nice to have.

Only needs to be done once, not every time.

 .. pamd logind entires

Only needs to be done once, not every time.

 .. syslogd changes to accomodate systemd

Is this necessary? I don't remember doing this.

 .. setting systemd to log to syslog to make transitions smoother (as
 logs are lost on reboot by default)

If this were to be done, this could be done in the systemd package.

Out of all what is mentioned; you either need two GRUB entries or a
single symlink that eselect controls, other than that there's nothing
here to be made as part of eselect. Some of these things already are
made the way they are by default, other things can happen as part of
emerging a package; the other first install things are documented.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Gnome required systemd without alternative. Coincidence? I don't
 believe in them. I trust probabilities and statistics.

Gnome doesn't have such requirement; alternatives are possible, it's
not coincidence. I trust actual words from those that were involved:

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts

 OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be.

Do you have a source that backs up this claim? It comes as part of
stage3, but a systemd stage3 is being worked on[1]; however, it has only
temporarily been in the @system set (due to functions.sh[2] which is now
split) and will soon be removed from it.

 [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482702
 [2]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219

 Thus anyone willing to use something else should do an appropriate
 job.

It is actively being worked on from what can be seen.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:50:24 -0500
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:

All myself and others have been insisting on is that systemd
proponents be prevented from unilaterally creating some kind of
dependenc[y][ies] whereby, through that backdoor, they create a
situation where the *current* *default* init system must be switched.

It are the consumers that do, sometimes even the packagers; because some
neat future that fits them is provided by one implementation, they adopt
that and given limited manpower they expect other implementations to
follow. This is whilst stating However, long term hopefully
gnome-session can die and such code in systemd. in the following blog
post by a GNOME foundation as well as GNOME release team member:

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/

On Gentoo, we indeed prevent such dependencies where manpower allows
us; for example, to give an opposite example, we've even removed
sys-apps/openrc from several package dependencies to allow for its
removal. The same is actively guarded for sys-apps/systemd; but for
both, you'll be able to find an exception to it here or there.

The same is said by one of the Gentoo Council members in a comment on
another blog post here, worth reading:

https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/02/03/my-thoughts-on-the-default-init-system-for-debian-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-782

And your preference for systemd doesn't obligate your distro of
choice to change to it as the *default* init system.

What is a default in a distro with meta choices anyway? Yes, choice:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482702

Again, we are just insisting that systemd proponents be prevented
from forcing gentoo into a situation where we are *forced* to switch
to systemd for the *default* init system.

While it is something to worry about; however, it's only happened once
and temporarily for GNOME (decided on by our maintainers), this has no
implication that this will happen much more beyond that. There are
people that are going to actively prevent that if it does happen.

Hence the general case above. If you want to use foo without using
bar, but the upstream and package maintainers of foo want to use
bar, then it's _your_ responsibility to make foo work without bar.
PERIOD.

I agree... so, if *you* want to use systemd, it is *your*
reponsibility to make systemd work without impacting existing gentoo
users

The impact, if any, is kept as minimal as possible; Gentoo, as stated
by it philosophy, about page and documentation is a meta distribution
which implies we attempt to support choices. Sometimes this means that
minimal adjustments need to be made to support multiple choices.

*or* the fact that gentoo has selected OpenRC as it's default init
system.

It's rather a consequence than a fact; for it to be a fact, there needs
to be an accepted motion from an higher instance stating it to be so.

This isn't about individual packages. It is about one of the choices
that *Distro's* must make - in this case, regarding something very
significant (the choice of what to use as the default init system).

Both (separate stage3's), or none at all (stage3); are also options. :)

We, again, are simply insisting that it is the responsibility of the
developers of systemd to *not* create situations where they *force*
other distro's into *impossible* *situations* where they are *forced*
to switch their init systems or have basic system packages stop
working.

It are the consumers, to some extent even the packagers, that do this.

The best way for gentoo, as a distro, to protect its users and it's
ecosystem, is to provide a sane, managed approach for systemd
proponents to get systemd added to gentoo as a formally supported
*optional* init system.

Then, and only then, can it be judged on its *merits*,

and then and *only* then should it (imnsho) ever be considered as a
potential candidate for being made a new *default*.

-1; unless, well, it has lost its controversial status in the future.

--
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-20 Thread Alan McKinnon

On 20/03/2014 20:57, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:46:42 +0200
 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 eselect manages config options between different implementation of a
 thing. Usually by tweaking symlinks. Switching init OpenRC - SystemD
 involves resetting uSE flags and recompiling some fundamental stuff.
 That exercise is unlikely to ever go into eselect.
 
 Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works.

How is this done?


 
 The devs on gentoo-dev already nuked the idea of a gentoo profile as
 such, it's not worth the effort and causes an explosion of profiles.
 
 It's happening, `find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name '*systemd*'`; does
 it have any consequences that are worth thinking through?

As it stands now exactly, none. I only checked one profile:

default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/kde/

and that consists of one file - parent.
It lists .. and targets/systemd as parents. Which is easy enough as long
as the idea of systemd with kde stays exactly like that - the strict
union of kde and systemd profiles. Right now, a few line script can
create those profiles, will it always be that way?

What are the chances of LXDE and/or XFCE getting their own profiles like
Gnome and KDE? If they do, and they warrant a systemd sub-profile, then
the number of updates increases quite a lot. I've seen this kind of
thing happen many times where the number opf combinations quickly gets
out of control and becomes scary maintenance.

It's a pity Gentoo doesn't support multiple profiles (just keep enabling
extra till you get what you want or portage finds a conflict). That
would make new profile settings much easier. It's probably not supported
for the same reason most languages don;t go multiple inheritance. Oh well


 Conceptually, it is rather similar to switching between nouveau and
 nvidia. That doesn't have eselect support[1] or profiles.
 
 Well, running NVIDIA now I can reboot with a simple script[1] put
 in /etc/local.d/nvidia.start (with execute permission); this works for
 me on both OpenRC and systemd, I'd say it is easy to do. Perhaps it can
 even be made more easy by rewriting the Xorg configuration to be device
 aware and therefore not needing the steps shown in this script.
 
  [1]: https://gist.github.com/TomWij/a13abacfb74999c10957

Yeah, you'd really need to make it work with one unchanging xorg.conf.
And that first line of code - relying on -nvidia being in
/proc/cmdline - wtf is that? :-)

Such, um, butcher hacks work OK on your machine but sure ain't

production ready

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-20 Thread Andrew Savchenko

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:00:27 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote:
  OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be.
 
 Do you have a source that backs up this claim?

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=6

 It comes as part of
 stage3, but a systemd stage3 is being worked on[1]; however, it has only
 temporarily been in the @system set (due to functions.sh[2] which is now
 split) and will soon be removed from it.
 
  [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482702

If these stage will be alternative, I'm OK with this. If it will be
the only one available, many people will have to say Gentoo good
bye.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko


pgpTdDzBnqsa_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:22:22 +0200
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 20/03/2014 20:57, Tom Wijsman wrote:

  Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works.
 
 How is this done?

Here, two GRUB entries; alternatively, eselect init to switch symlinks.

  It's happening, `find /usr/portage/profiles/ -name '*systemd*'`;
  does it have any consequences that are worth thinking through?
 
 As it stands now exactly, none. I only checked one profile:

Good, as you describe after this (cut out), I get the impression that
the opposite is the case and there are not enough; a solution to that
exists elwhere, in Funtoo, check out their Flavors and Mix-ins:

http://www.funtoo.org/Flavors_and_Mix-ins

Would be nice to have this on Gentoo.

  Well, running NVIDIA now I can reboot with a simple script[1] put
  in /etc/local.d/nvidia.start (with execute permission); this works
  for me on both OpenRC and systemd, I'd say it is easy to do.
  Perhaps it can even be made more easy by rewriting the Xorg
  configuration to be device aware and therefore not needing the
  steps shown in this script.
  
   [1]: https://gist.github.com/TomWij/a13abacfb74999c10957
 
 Yeah, you'd really need to make it work with one unchanging xorg.conf.

Haven't tried; but given it works, it's something that I delay doing.

 And that first line of code - relying on -nvidia being in
 /proc/cmdline - wtf is that? :-)

Magic. :D
 
 Such, um, butcher hacks work OK on your machine but sure ain't
 
 production ready

Maybe you mean packaging ready; as for production on your own servers
and desktops, I think it is ready enough. But YMMV.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 02:27:11 +0600
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:00:27 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote:
   OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will
   be.
  
  Do you have a source that backs up this claim?
 
 http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=6

That is documentation; it being listed as a default there is by the
consequence of it having been present there, whether it is decided to
be the default is another story (not found grepping council meetings).

  It comes as part of
  stage3, but a systemd stage3 is being worked on[1]; however, it has
  only temporarily been in the @system set (due to functions.sh[2]
  which is now split) and will soon be removed from it.
  
   [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482702
 
 If these stage will be alternative, I'm OK with this. If it will be
 the only one available, many people will have to say Gentoo good
 bye.

Yes, alternative.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-20 Thread Alan McKinnon

On 20/03/2014 22:33, Tom Wijsman wrote:
 Good, as you describe after this (cut out), I get the impression that
 the opposite is the case and there are not enough; a solution to that
 exists elwhere, in Funtoo, check out their Flavors and Mix-ins:
 
 http://www.funtoo.org/Flavors_and_Mix-ins
 
 Would be nice to have this on Gentoo.


Oooh, like in Django? Yes, I like that idea a lot.

I think of mix-ins like I think of java interfaces - wonderful idea,
easy to use, really hard to get them wrong

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-20 Thread Tanstaafl


On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:

Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.

I am on the list and don't need two copies.

Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete my 
direct email manually yourself) in your email program.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-20 Thread Tanstaafl


On 3/20/2014 4:00 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:

OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be.



Do you have a source that backs up this claim?


Are you seriously challenging the FACT that OpenRC is the default init 
system in gentoo?

Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-20 Thread Neil Bothwick

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:22:22 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

  Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works.  
 
 How is this done?

Simply by booting without init=. although some packages have been built
with USE=systemd they still work when booting using openrc. Of course,
systemd is still present on the system, even if the PID1 process is not
running.

Incidentally, I discovered today that Linux Mint Debian Edition uses
classic init, but has systemd installed. All you need to switch over is
add the init= kernel option.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

A. Top posters.
Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-03-01 Thread Mick

On Friday 28 Feb 2014 13:45:12 Stroller wrote:
 On Fri, 28 February 2014, at 8:05 am, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org 
wrote:

  This must be a US -only thing since I've never even heard of AOL
  desktop/suite before, even while lived through the 90's and the bulletin
  board times (as being a SysOp myself ;-)
 
 I'm in the UK, myself.
 
 The AOL software is browser, email, IM and ads, all wrapped up in a single
 Windows application.
 
 http://i.imgur.com/bUin2ki.png
 
 I doubt there's anyone on this list who wouldn't find it obnoxious, but
 there are people who are really happy with it.

I think it also comes with its own (branded) antivirus, since most of its 
users couldn't be trusted to set up or keep up with updates on their PC.  I 
can't recall if it also turns on and runs MSWindows Updates too.  :-p

-- 
Regards,
Mick


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-28 Thread Samuli Suominen


On 28/02/14 08:47, Stroller wrote:
 On Wed, 26 February 2014, at 8:29 pm, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org 
 wrote:
 … 
 * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows.
  We know how that turned out.
 You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many 
 of those forced to use it (I guess in the late 90's or early 00's), it is / 
 was so massively popular with grannies that it is still available today. 

 Dial-up division is still AOL's most profitable division, earning them $500m 
 per year,[1] and I would attribute the popularity of the AOL desktop suite to 
 this.

 I've seen this profitability attributed to misinformed customers who don't 
 know they no-longer need AOL now they have DSL, but having been told by a 
 number of people that all they want out of their computer is their AOL, I 
 find it had to agree with that characterisation.

 AOL's desktop suite has certainly not been a failure for the company.

 Stroller.




 [1] http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/02/18/aol-dial-up-profits/



This must be a US -only thing since I've never even heard of AOL
desktop/suite before, even while lived through the 90's and the bulletin
board times (as being a SysOp myself ;-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-28 Thread Stroller


On Fri, 28 February 2014, at 8:05 am, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org 
wrote:
 … 
 * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows.
 We know how that turned out.
 You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many 
 of those forced to use it (I guess in the late 90's or early 00's), it is 
 / was so massively popular with grannies that it is still available today. 
 
 ...
 AOL's desktop suite has certainly not been a failure for the company.
 
 This must be a US -only thing since I've never even heard of AOL
 desktop/suite before, even while lived through the 90's and the bulletin
 board times (as being a SysOp myself ;-)

I'm in the UK, myself.

The AOL software is browser, email, IM and ads, all wrapped up in a single 
Windows application. 

http://i.imgur.com/bUin2ki.png

I doubt there's anyone on this list who wouldn't find it obnoxious, but there 
are people who are really happy with it.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-27 Thread Stroller


On Wed, 26 February 2014, at 8:29 pm, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
 … 
 * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows.
  We know how that turned out.

You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many of 
those forced to use it (I guess in the late 90's or early 00's), it is / was 
so massively popular with grannies that it is still available today. 

Dial-up division is still AOL's most profitable division, earning them $500m 
per year,[1] and I would attribute the popularity of the AOL desktop suite to 
this.

I've seen this profitability attributed to misinformed customers who don't 
know they no-longer need AOL now they have DSL, but having been told by a 
number of people that all they want out of their computer is their AOL, I find 
it had to agree with that characterisation.

AOL's desktop suite has certainly not been a failure for the company.

Stroller.




[1] http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/02/18/aol-dial-up-profits/

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-26 Thread Walter Dnes

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:32:32AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

 Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it
 remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax?

  The (d)evolution of perl reminds me of what's happened to Firefox,
GNOME, and KDE.  To paraphrase the emacs joke, perl is a mediocre
operating system that lacks a lightweight text-manipulation utility.
WTF does every simple program try to become an OS?

* The original Practical Extraction and Reporting Language PERL has
  become a pseudo-OS.  Believe it or not, it was a lightweight practical
  text-parsing and report-generating utility back in the day.

* Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows.
  We know how that turned out.

* I'm old enough to remember the days of the Phoenix betas (later
  Firebird then Firefox).  A lean/mean fast web-browser.  Now it's
  turned into a bloated monstrosity, complete with relational database,
  that's being used as the basis for Firefox-OS phones.

* Google's Chrome/Chromium came from Chrome-OS, so it's not too
  surprising that it demands dbus and udev to build.

* I remember when KDE and GNOME were zippy on machines with 64 megs of
  RAM.  The sad part is that the GNOME desktop had more features then
  than it has now as it moves towards becoming GNOME-OS.

-- 
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications

Gentoo+Gnome requires systemd, but Gnome itself does not? Why? - WAS: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-25 Thread Tanstaafl


On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:

In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo
maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices.


Interesting. Now I have to spin off a new thread as to why this decision 
was made if it isn't forced by GNOME itself...

Re: Gentoo+Gnome requires systemd, but Gnome itself does not? Why? - WAS: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-25 Thread Alan McKinnon

On 25/02/2014 14:40, Tanstaafl wrote:
 On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
 In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo
 maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices.
 
 Interesting. Now I have to spin off a new thread as to why this decision
 was made if it isn't forced by GNOME itself...
 
 
 

Gnome uses logind, Canek has consistently stated that for months now.

logind is part of systemd (AIUI it's more bundled than a chunk of a
monolothic lump) and replaces consolekit.

The feature set of logind can be implemented in something else. Or, that
functionality in previous Gnome versions forward-ported to 3.10 to be
able to drop logind as a dep.

OpenBSD would have had little choice in this as systemd doesn't run on
OpenBSD - systemd uses many features unique to the Linux kernel. So they
would have had to do *something* about logind. Whatever they did, it
would have been a non-trivial amount of work.

I suspect the Gentoo Gnome maintainers were not prepared to, or don't
have the manpower, to do the same on Gentoo so took the easier route of
depending on systemd.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: Gentoo+Gnome requires systemd, but Gnome itself does not? Why? - WAS: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-25 Thread Canek Peláez Valdés

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 25/02/2014 14:40, Tanstaafl wrote:
 On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
 In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo
 maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices.

 Interesting. Now I have to spin off a new thread as to why this decision
 was made if it isn't forced by GNOME itself...

 Gnome uses logind, Canek has consistently stated that for months now.

That is true; but no one have to trust me on anything. The code is out
there ([1], [2]); anyone can go and check what dependencies GNOME
exactly require.

 logind is part of systemd (AIUI it's more bundled than a chunk of a
 monolothic lump) and replaces consolekit.

I'm not so sure about this anymore. It seems that logind actually uses
many of systemd features, and therefore is really difficult to
implement independently of it. For a high overview discussion of this,
you can check [3], where Ryan Lortie says:


Some interfaces provided by systemd are less awesome. Even at the
D-Bus level, the interface for PID 1 or logind are so complicated and
implementation-specific that they could never be reasonably
independently implemented. These interfaces often mix multiple
functionality sets into one: for the logind case, for example, only a
small subset of this is ever required by a desktop environment running
as a normal user. Many other calls on the same interface are only
called by other operating system components.


Ubuntu has been (and supposedly, still is) interested in having a
non-systemd replacement; but AFAIK, they don't have it yet. For
systemd = 204 the code of logind was more independent of systemd
features, so they just cut it from there; after 205 (when the new
slices thingies were added to deal with the future cgroups API from
the kernel), this is no longer possible, so they need to actually
write an API compatible replacement. This hasn't come to fruition (and
because of the above quote, this doesn't look easy).

Perhaps a compromise could be reached where the desktop-necessary
parts of logind are isolated in their own dbus API.

As with everything, however, somebody should do that job.

 The feature set of logind can be implemented in something else. Or, that
 functionality in previous Gnome versions forward-ported to 3.10 to be
 able to drop logind as a dep.

In this case, the something else is ConsoleKit, which (AFAIK) works
in the *BSD.

 OpenBSD would have had little choice in this as systemd doesn't run on
 OpenBSD - systemd uses many features unique to the Linux kernel. So they
 would have had to do *something* about logind. Whatever they did, it
 would have been a non-trivial amount of work.

I don't think so; the source code I linked says (literally):

if test x$enable_systemd = xyes; then
   [ snip ]
session_tracking=systemd (with fallback to ConsoleKit)
else
session_tracking=ConsoleKit
fi

So, it could be that is actually trivial.

The real problem is that most GNOME developers don't use the
ConsoleKit code paths anymore, so the burden of works goes to the
people that don't have systemd (*BSD).

 I suspect the Gentoo Gnome maintainers were not prepared to, or don't
 have the manpower, to do the same on Gentoo so took the easier route of
 depending on systemd.

Most of them don't use OpenRC anymore, so they could perhaps see that
the code emerges without errors, but they would not be able to
actually test it. They rather decided to support what they could test,
than to give the appearance of choice when no one is really
supporting the CK code paths.

(Also, it seems undeniable that logind works so much better than CK ever did).

Regards.

[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac#n882
[2] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-session/tree/configure.ac#n123
[3] http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2014/02/19/on-portability/
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Mark David Dumlao

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru wrote:
 24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
 [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a system
 controller. What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
 it well?


 An init daemon generally does one thing well.

it's obvious you haven't thought this through.

consider, for a moment, that the one thing well that an init daemon
is supposed to do is
run programs that do arbitrary things to get the system to an arbitrary state.

do you not see a problem?
-- 
This email is:[ ] actionable   [ ] fyi[x] social
Response needed:  [ ] yes  [ ] up to you  [x] no
Time-sensitive:   [ ] immediate[ ] soon   [x] none

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Yuri K. Shatroff




24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru wrote:

24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:

[1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a system
controller. What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
it well?



An init daemon generally does one thing well.


it's obvious you haven't thought this through.

consider, for a moment, that the one thing well that an init daemon
is supposed to do is
run programs that do arbitrary things to get the system to an arbitrary state.

do you not see a problem?


No. As you say, ``an init daemon is supposed to do is run programs``, 
until here you're right, but then you start talking about things the 
init doesn't do but the programs do. In your wording, an init daemon is 
also a DBMS, an MTA, a network startup daemon, a firewall, a getty and 
whatever program runs on the system.
There was a post in this thread with a link to an opinion what an `ideal 
init` would do: just fork and exec anything in /etc/init.d or somewhere 
else.
In the real world, it's of course not so simple. But it doesn't mean you 
may imply init's responsibility for `arbitrary` tasks. If I write an ASM 
program with an illegal instruction, is it the init's problem? If my 
mail/web server is DDOSed, is it the init's problem? If my HDD dies, 
also the init's problem?


--
Regards,
Yuri K. Shatroff

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Mark David Dumlao

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru wrote:


 24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет:

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru
 wrote:

 24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:

 [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a system
 controller. What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
 it well?



 An init daemon generally does one thing well.


 it's obvious you haven't thought this through.

 consider, for a moment, that the one thing well that an init daemon
 is supposed to do is
 run programs that do arbitrary things to get the system to an arbitrary
 state.

 do you not see a problem?


 No. As you say, ``an init daemon is supposed to do is run programs``, until
 here you're right, but then you start talking about things the init doesn't
 do but the programs do. In your wording, an init daemon is also a DBMS, an
 MTA, a network startup daemon, a firewall, a getty and whatever program runs
 on the system.

Let's try to talk you through to a soft landing here.

When we say init, are we just referring to pid 1, or are we referring
to something
else entirely?

OpenRC is often spoken of in the same breath as systemd, as if they were
the same kind of thing. That sounds fair but think about it for a second:

openrc - as most people talk about it - isn't even pid 1. as most people
talk about it, openrc includes the functions.sh, the net.eth0 scripts,
the script
for starting your /sys, /proc, mounting local and network filesystems, setting
the hostname and so on.


They may be written in a different language from pid1, but when people
talk about
openrc, they are talking about that whole ball of wax. From a systems
perspective - they're parts of the same thing.

Even discounting the parts that you think are ridiculous, like databases and
loggers, there are clearly more parts in there above than can be cleanly defined
as one thing.

Who gets to decide which is the one thing or not? You? Don't you rely on
openrc to set your hostname? Load your kernel modules? Run your sysctl?
Set any miscellaneous options in /sys? Mount your filesystems?

Go ahead, define for everyone, once and for all, what this one thing is.

Does this one thing init include  a subsystem for reading separate
environment files per-service? Isn't this just feature creep? Can't you just
edit the init scripts to add those in? I mean, they are already
scripts after all.
And they're in /etc, they're meant to be configured.

Does this one thing include service dependencies? Why sysv has gone for
a LONG time without them, just a sequencing, and that works fine for almost
all cases anyways. Isn't this just feature creep? Can't you just edit the init
scripts to start any dependent services?

Point is - go look at any arbitrary feature that's part of your init
system and
you could cry to hell and high water that it's violating the one
thing, whatever
that one thing is that doesn't seem to be defined.

At least with systemd the parts are cleanly split off into separate executables.
Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to create tempfiles for
other programs.
That's why systemd-tmpfiles is its own tiny program, that does one one thing
(create tempfiles for other programs) and nothing else. Yes, it's technically
not needed for pid 1 to check your filesystems. That's why systemd-fsck is
once again, a separate utility, that does one thing (run fsck) well. Yes,
it's technically not needed for pid 1 to remount your filesystems readwrite.
Again there's a separate utilty for that, that does nothing but just that.

It's clear to me that there's an analogue between the different parts of a
full openrc system - that just happen to be implemented in scripts - and
the different parts of a systemd system - that just happen to be implemented
in small binaries.

Every time people complain about systemd having too many features,
they just _casually_ forget to mention that, for instance, their init actually
asks them if they want to run interactive (why do that when you can specify
from the boot loader?) or checks the configuration files of their daemons
to see if they're valid and prompts the user to config if not. They just
_casually_ fail to mention that their init has plugins for NetworkManager
and ifplugd, that it comes with scripts for setting the consolefont.
Meanwhile systemd does those same things, and it's bloated, theirs
isn't.

Oh you're going to say that that's not fair, it's external optional stuff,
it's not _really_ part of openrc, but that's not intellectually honest is it?
Heck, I could do that same. I could control my bootup process so that
I run my own stuff instead of systemd-fsck, systemd-tmpfiles,
systemd-mount and all that jazz and run plain old init scripts in their
place.

Why bother?

The reality is that - init scripts don't do just one thing, and don't even
do it well.
-- 
This email is:[ ] actionable   [ ] fyi[x] social
Response

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Yuri K. Shatroff


On 24.02.2014 18:33, Mark David Dumlao wrote:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru wrote:



24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет:


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru
wrote:


24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:


[1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a system
controller. What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
it well?




An init daemon generally does one thing well.



it's obvious you haven't thought this through.

consider, for a moment, that the one thing well that an init daemon
is supposed to do is
run programs that do arbitrary things to get the system to an arbitrary
state.

do you not see a problem?



No. As you say, ``an init daemon is supposed to do is run programs``, until
here you're right, but then you start talking about things the init doesn't
do but the programs do. In your wording, an init daemon is also a DBMS, an
MTA, a network startup daemon, a firewall, a getty and whatever program runs
on the system.


Let's try to talk you through to a soft landing here.

When we say init, are we just referring to pid 1, or are we referring
to something
else entirely?


Sorry but I think I was quite clear:
 An init daemon generally does one thing well.
Following a Unix way design, Everything else should be done by 
something else.



OpenRC is often spoken of in the same breath as systemd, as if they were
the same kind of thing. That sounds fair but think about it for a second:


Sorry but did I mention OpenRC?


openrc - as most people talk about it - isn't even pid 1. as most people
talk about it, openrc includes the functions.sh, the net.eth0 scripts,
the script
for starting your /sys, /proc, mounting local and network filesystems, setting
the hostname and so on.


Obviously. That is why OpenRC *can* be treated as a Unix way thing, 
because the whole bunch are pretty interchangeable, independent and do 
their own things well, don't they?



They may be written in a different language from pid1, but when people
talk about
openrc, they are talking about that whole ball of wax. From a systems
perspective - they're parts of the same thing.

Even discounting the parts that you think are ridiculous, like databases and
loggers, there are clearly more parts in there above than can be cleanly defined
as one thing.

Who gets to decide which is the one thing or not? You? Don't you rely on
openrc to set your hostname? Load your kernel modules? Run your sysctl?
Set any miscellaneous options in /sys? Mount your filesystems?

Go ahead, define for everyone, once and for all, what this one thing is.



Does this one thing init include  a subsystem for reading separate
environment files per-service? Isn't this just feature creep? Can't you just
edit the init scripts to add those in? I mean, they are already
scripts after all.
And they're in /etc, they're meant to be configured.


Sorry, do you mean *everything* in /etc/ is to be configured? That's a 
convention to put the init stuff in /etc/. You could as well put it in 
/usr, /boot, wherever. In FreeBSD, the local init stuff resides in 
/usr/local/etc. In Solaris, elsewhere. In AIX, elsewhere. Why do you 
look at everything from a single linux's angle? Please note, I never say 
the 'linux way' but the Unix way.
And you might also notice, an init system does not really much depend on 
the init daemon. It's pretty possible to run a SysV init daemon on a BSD 
system, or the opposite, because all the init daemon does is start some 
init scripts. Maybe /etc/rc, maybe /etc/init.d/* ...



Does this one thing include service dependencies?


This depends on what one thing you want the init daemon to do. In e.g. 
FreeBSD, the dependencies are handled by /etc/rc.


 Why sysv has gone for

a LONG time without them, just a sequencing, and that works fine for almost
all cases anyways. Isn't this just feature creep? Can't you just edit the init
scripts to start any dependent services?



Point is - go look at any arbitrary feature that's part of your init
system and
you could cry to hell and high water that it's violating the one
thing, whatever
that one thing is that doesn't seem to be defined.

At least with systemd the parts are cleanly split off into separate executables.
Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to create tempfiles for
other programs.
That's why systemd-tmpfiles is its own tiny program, that does one one thing
(create tempfiles for other programs) and nothing else. Yes, it's technically
not needed for pid 1 to check your filesystems. That's why systemd-fsck is
once again, a separate utility, that does one thing (run fsck) well. Yes,
it's technically not needed for pid 1 to remount your filesystems readwrite.
Again there's a separate utilty for that, that does nothing but just that.


Okay, but can I take them out and substitute mine own easily? How? Is 
there a well-defined standard? Is there a well-defined objective, a 
target at

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Mark David Dumlao

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru wrote:
 On 24.02.2014 18:33, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
 Sorry but I think I was quite clear:

 An init daemon generally does one thing well.
 Following a Unix way design, Everything else should be done by something
 else.
...
 At least with systemd the parts are cleanly split off into separate
 executables.
 Yes, it's technically not needed for pid 1 to create tempfiles for
 other programs.
 That's why systemd-tmpfiles is its own tiny program, that does one one
 thing
 (create tempfiles for other programs) and nothing else. Yes, it's
 technically
 not needed for pid 1 to check your filesystems. That's why systemd-fsck is
 once again, a separate utility, that does one thing (run fsck) well.
 Yes,
 it's technically not needed for pid 1 to remount your filesystems
 readwrite.
 Again there's a separate utilty for that, that does nothing but just that.


 Okay, but can I take them out and substitute mine own easily? How? Is there
 a well-defined standard? Is there a well-defined objective, a target at
 which the systemd software set will be considered stable 'version 1.0'? I am
 asking again, if a bug is found in the systemd infrastructure, is it
 possible (i.e. how much effort it would take) to fix it temporarily on a
 running system?


It's almost as if you don't bother reading the docs on something, then
comment that they're impossible.

Yes you can take them out and substitute yours, in fact I just
mentioned that I could replace them with plain old init scripts.
systemd services are controlled by the same unit files that control
other services.


 OpenRC is often spoken of in the same breath as systemd, as if they were
 the same kind of thing. That sounds fair but think about it for a second:


 Sorry but did I mention OpenRC?


There is a context to this conversation that you appear to be selectively
ignoring, wherein openrc, sysvinit, and systemd are being compared, and
only one of them is being demonized as anti-Unix. I compared systemd above
_both_ to openrc and to sysvinit. The point being ethat systemd is not
comparable to _just_ init, but to the whole init ball of wax.


 openrc - as most people talk about it - isn't even pid 1. as most people
 talk about it, openrc includes the functions.sh, the net.eth0 scripts,
 the script
 for starting your /sys, /proc, mounting local and network filesystems,
 setting
 the hostname and so on.


 Obviously. That is why OpenRC *can* be treated as a Unix way thing,
 because the whole bunch are pretty interchangeable, independent and do their
 own things well, don't they?


interchangeable:
I also pointed out that the systemd parts, like openrc parts, are
interchangeable, and do their own things well. I did mention, for example,
that I could replace systemd-fsck with an init script. Heck I could disable
it entirely if I didn't care about fsck (for instance, in a container). Likewise
the mount unit the network units, etc etc can be disabled or replaced
if wanted.

independent:
I do not think independent is an important concept for Unixness, as most of
the parts of postfix, dovecot, xorg, qmail, squid, etc are not independent.


What you DIDN'T and have not been able to point out is what this one thing
that pid 1 is supposed to do.

What you also have not been able to demonstrate is that openrc or other
init systems' parts follow the same criteria. There's was a long-standing bug,
for instance, in that functions.sh has not been separated from openrc.
I believe Canek was one of the people pushing to have it done so - to
better support systemd - something that violates independence and
interchangeability.


 Sorry, do you mean *everything* in /etc/ is to be configured? That's a
 convention to put the init stuff in /etc/. You could as well put it in /usr,
 /boot, wherever. In FreeBSD, the local init stuff resides in /usr/local/etc.
 In Solaris, elsewhere. In AIX, elsewhere. Why do you look at everything from
 a single linux's angle? Please note, I never say the 'linux way' but the
 Unix way.

/etc scripts ARE meant to be configured. At the very minimum, from the
perspective of gentoo, they are treated by the conf-update tool as config files.
You are expected to copy and customize init scripts for custom or local
daemons.

 And you might also notice, an init system does not really much depend on the
 init daemon. It's pretty possible to run a SysV init daemon on a BSD system,
 or the opposite, because all the init daemon does is start some init
 scripts. Maybe /etc/rc, maybe /etc/init.d/* ...

This is besides the point. Different programs are free to rely on different
standards and different features. That openrc can't work or depend on
systemd is not systemd's fault, in the same way that not all parts of
postfix can work or depend on all parts of qmail.

None of this says anything about the unixiness of postfix or qmail, none
of this says anything about the unixiness of init or systemd.


 No, really.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Yuri K. Shatroff


On 24.02.2014 22:55, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
[...]


I didn't attribute anything to you you didn't say. It just so happens, though
that there is a context to this conversation, which, if you ignore, just
tends to perpetuate a lot of confusion. I am responding to questions and
points in that context for the benefit of the larger conversation, not
just for you.


I'll be short.

You also ignored much of what I asked, and tend to answer that's 
besides the point to things which IMO matter.
If you are responding to my post, then I'm expecting you to be replying 
to me, rather than to the benefit of the larger conversation, if you 
didn't say otherwise. ;-)
As for the context, I was answering to Alan's ``I've been wondering 
about this concept of the*nix design principles... `` which (as well 
as my answer) didn't mention systemd and openrc at all.
In this thread, there's already a rattling mixture of contexts. I'm 
opting out of it, because I no longer see the benefit of the larger 
conversation here.

Nevertheless, thank you for your time and answers.

--
Best wishes,
Yuri K. Shatroff

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Mick

On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 23:54:32 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
 On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 [ snip ]
 
  Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code,
 
 My point exactly.

I think your point is not valid, unless you view Linux as an operating system 
intended for and inviting comments only from an inspired l33t who can code and 
it is *only* their user requirements that count.

I understand though that it is their/their employer's choice as to how they 
spend their coding time and what they spend it on.  I am not ungrateful for 
their generosity whether I agree with their approach or not.


 And that's the point; the people doing this changes *obviously
 understand Unix*. They understand it so well that they are able to
 look at it honestly, beyond dogma or articles of faith, and see its
 downsides, so they can try to fix them.

You seem to have a lot of faith in their approach and choice-limiting 
decisions.  They have made arbitrary decisions in developing their software in 
ways contrary to their predecessors.  I don't know if this is because they are 
cleverer than their predecessors, or more ignorant/arrogant/wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
 
 This reminds me of the people that quote from religious books to argue
 about anything non theological. The rules and sound bites in the
 links you provide are there to summarize rules of thumb; they are NOT
 scripture, and they are certainly NOT the only way to get a
 technically good program that is easily maintainable. In other words,
 you can ignore most of them, or just following them to a point, and
 anyway end up with a sound design and a technically great program that
 is easy to maintain and extend.

I agree.  This is not a religion, but a statement of design principles based 
on some observations of what seemed to work (at the time) that were made after 
the event.


 The people with coding experience (or most of them anyway) understand
 this; we are not a religion, we don't have prophets that speak the
 undeniably truth. We have highly skilled developers who can have
 opposing views on how to design and implement many different ideas,
 and that doesn't (necessarily) means that any of them are wrong.

We agree again, except that some of these opposing ideas are limiting future 
development choices and current user options.


 There are many ways to solve a problem of sets of problems. Having
 Emacs doesn't mean vi is wrong, nor having GNOME means KDE is
 wrong, nor the other way around.

KDE took a wrong turn the moment it started emulating Gnome by hardcoding 
redland a whole host of components in its pursuit of a semantic desktop, 
removing choice from users who would be otherwise very happy with the KDE3 
functionality.  Many users have voted with their feet - not because they can 
code better or code at all, but because they still have a choice as plain 
users.

At least KDE has not hardcoded a requirement for systemd as Gnome now has.


  I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns.
  
  Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for
  modules?
  
  I would think that although the kernel has grown over the years, it has
  not done so like systemd.  You can still *not* build modules you don't
  need in your kernel.
 
 This has nothing to do with Unix principles; it's just that someone
 willing and able implemented the different options.

Well, someone willing and able implemented the different options, but did so 
by following the paradigm of modular development.


  The Unix design philosophy may not be globally applicable, but has served
  Linux well over the years.
 
 No; what has served Linux is to have developers willing and able to
 write the necessary code, following whatever design they decide is the
 correct one.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement here.  The Unix design principles 
inc. modularisation and extensibility make good sense when seen from the 
perspective of many contributors adding to and improving code in a piece meal 
fashion.  X11 did not follow this approach and ended up with convoluted 
unmaintainable code that had to be broken up.

Having developers able and willing to write code is of course a precondition, 
but not just any code.  It has to be code which others can pick up, improve 
and extend.  In other words, they have to write code which is versatile, being 
respectful of and keeping in mind future development effort.


  Lennart has de facto introduced a different way of
  developing his Linux code, which to others and me seems more restrictive.
 
 First of all, it's not only Lennart; the systemd repo has (literally)
 dozens of contributors with write access.
 
 Second of all, calling restrictive the tightly integrated approach,
 is exactly as constructive as calling anarchic the loosely
 integrated one. Like Unix principles, it means nothing and it says
 nothing.

On the contrary, I

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Canek Peláez Valdés

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 23:54:32 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
 On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:

 [ snip ]

  Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code,

 My point exactly.

 I think your point is not valid, unless you view Linux as an operating system
 intended for and inviting comments only from an inspired l33t who can code and
 it is *only* their user requirements that count.

Of course comments can come from anyone. But it stands to reason that,
in the first place, the people *writing* the code would primarily
listen to people that actually know what they are talking about. In
the second place, even if they *listen*, that doesn't mean they will
*implement* whatever a random set of users ask for.

 I understand though that it is their/their employer's choice as to how they
 spend their coding time and what they spend it on.  I am not ungrateful for
 their generosity whether I agree with their approach or not.

Glad to hear that.

 And that's the point; the people doing this changes *obviously
 understand Unix*. They understand it so well that they are able to
 look at it honestly, beyond dogma or articles of faith, and see its
 downsides, so they can try to fix them.

 You seem to have a lot of faith in their approach and choice-limiting
 decisions.

I have nothing even remotely close to faith. I can read code, I can
read design documents, and I follow the discussions in the different
forums where systemd is the topic. It's my educated and reasonable
conclusion that their approach is correct (in general terms; of course
I don't agree with everything).

 They have made arbitrary decisions in developing their software in
 ways contrary to their predecessors.

Excuse me, but where do you get the idea to call their decisions
arbitrary. Again, read the code (if you are able to), read the
design documents, read the discussions. You can disagree with their
decisions (I do with some of them); but I don't think there is a
single one that can be called arbitrary.

  I don't know if this is because they are
 cleverer than their predecessors, or more ignorant/arrogant/wrong.

Not necessarily cleverer; they just have more software history
available to determine what it works and what it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

 This reminds me of the people that quote from religious books to argue
 about anything non theological. The rules and sound bites in the
 links you provide are there to summarize rules of thumb; they are NOT
 scripture, and they are certainly NOT the only way to get a
 technically good program that is easily maintainable. In other words,
 you can ignore most of them, or just following them to a point, and
 anyway end up with a sound design and a technically great program that
 is easy to maintain and extend.

 I agree.

Glad to hear that.

 This is not a religion, but a statement of design principles based
 on some observations of what seemed to work (at the time) that were made after
 the event.

You said it: at the time. Hardware is highly dynamic now; hard
drives, sound cards, network cards, memory and even CPUs can come and
go while the systems is running. SysV (and therefore, OpenRC) was
*never* intended to work like that, so what it does it does badly, if
at all.

 The people with coding experience (or most of them anyway) understand
 this; we are not a religion, we don't have prophets that speak the
 undeniably truth. We have highly skilled developers who can have
 opposing views on how to design and implement many different ideas,
 and that doesn't (necessarily) means that any of them are wrong.

 We agree again, except that some of these opposing ideas are limiting future
 development choices and current user options.

No they are not; THE CODE IS OUT THERE. Anyone can take the code at
any point in time before systemd, and start a new path if this one
turns out to be failing. There is no limiting no one and nothing;
while there are people willing and able to, any design path can be
explored.

 There are many ways to solve a problem of sets of problems. Having
 Emacs doesn't mean vi is wrong, nor having GNOME means KDE is
 wrong, nor the other way around.

 KDE took a wrong turn the moment it started emulating Gnome by hardcoding
 redland a whole host of components in its pursuit of a semantic desktop,
 removing choice from users who would be otherwise very happy with the KDE3
 functionality.  Many users have voted with their feet - not because they can
 code better or code at all, but because they still have a choice as plain
 users.

That's your analysis; I really don't like KDE, but I love my GNOME 3
desktop. That's subjective and has nothing to do with the topic at
hand; I was talking about how different (and sometimes opposite) ways
to solve a problem doesn't mean (necessarily) that one of them is
wrong.

 At least KDE has not hardcoded a

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-24 Thread Mick

On Monday 24 Feb 2014 21:48:39 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

  At least KDE has not hardcoded a requirement for systemd as Gnome now
  has.
 
 GNOME has no hardcoded requirement for systemd; do your homework.

I beg your pardon, I got this wrong - I extrapolated from the Gentoo state of 
affairs (I don't use or follow the Gnome project).

-- 
Regards,
Mick


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-23 Thread Mick

On Monday 17 Feb 2014 07:01:53 Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
 17.02.2014 00:19, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет:
  On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru
  wrote: [ snip ]
  
  Isn't there too many if you believe and if you agree? A church of
  systemd? ;)
  
  As I said to Tanstaafl, it gets kind of philosophical.
 
 Even religious.
 
  Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why
  the TC voted for it in Debian (read the discussion).
 
 Oh I have read so many discussions already... :)
 To me, systemd's technical superiority is far not obvious. Just another
 init system would be, but as long as systemd is much more that one, I
 can't say that. It should NOT be compared to OpenRC / upstart alone,
 rather to a whole bunch of tools it replaces, and probably even those
 it's ambitious to replace.
 
  I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into
  any existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just
  practical uselessness?
  
  If it's practically useless, why so many distributions keep choosing
  it? Why GNOME started using it?
 
 Well, I said that technical superiority matters little for maintainers;
 what matters is money. If I'd write some super-puper fancy init system
 and kernel replacement, who would be interested? It's not the time of
 Linus' rise, now you don't deal with USENET freaks, but with Intel,
 RedHat and other billionaire corps. Do you have the guts and means to
 keep up with competitors, even not about kernel/init subsystems, but a
 user app like mailer/browser/messenger...
 A kernel subsystem requires much more technical competence to maintain
 and is far more critical for functioning, so much more important here is
 not any 'technical superiority' but simply resources, human and
 financial, spared if using RH-maintained systemd.
 
  Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the
  Linux kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example
  of kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also
  has much in common with systemd; Believe us it's the best OS,
  Believe us it provides loads of features, Agree with having binary
  logs etc.
  
  All the software is libre; with only that any comparison to Microsoft
  becomes moot.
 
 Once you mentioned technical superiority, let's compare other stuff
 technically too. :)
 
  A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the
  questions:
  1. Is the software standards-compliant?
  2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation?
  3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal?
  4. Does the software achieve the goal?
  5. Does the software achieve the goal gracefully?
  6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be
  like? 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company
  or group?
  
  That's *your* approach. It's certainly not my approach: I don't care
  if Emacs is standards-compliant (whatever that means for a text
  editor); I don't care if Inkscape has an alternative compatible
  implementation; and for the rest of your questions, my answer would be
  yes.
 
 You don't care about Emacs and Inkscape but do you care the same nought
 about e.g. /bin/cp, /bin/mv etc? Do you care that your browser talks
 HTTP rather than SHiTP? Do you care that once after a couple of years
 your systems get unmaintained and unmaintainable because the software on
 them becomes a load of bashed up crap which only a world's head lennart
 can deal with? Well, you'll say that red hat tralala, but we've seen the
 rise and fall of many giants e.g. Sun with their once 'technically
 superior' Solaris and SPARCs, well one can name many I just don't have
 time, also we seen MySQL bought by Oracle, and all.
 Nothing is eternal, and it's (Again!) quite not always technical matters
 that matters.
 
  AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one yes. The other answers are
  dubious if just plain no.
  
   From your point of view.
   
  I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to
  switch to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and
  the benefit, if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold.
  
  That's fine; you don't have to use systemd. But if (as an extreme and
  unlikely example), Gentoo decided to switch exclusively to systemd,
  then either someone willing and able would need to come out ant start
  maintaining the alternatives, or then you should do it.
 
 At present, no. But the trend is clear.
 
  That's how free software works.
 
 Actually, free software (one you don't pay for) works like any other
 software you pay for. You probably wanted to say that's how the OSS
 model works but it's getting less and less true. The OSS model in many
 cases retains only its open source. Take MySQL, take KDE, take GNOME.
 Who cares about users? We do what we deem feasible regardless if you
 like it or not. Don't

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
 I am not sure if people object to the Lennart-way of messing up Linux, under
 the blessings of RHL, or if they just don't like the immediate outcome.

Actually, most people that actually *try* using systemd and reads how
it works have no problems with it, and of those there are many (like
me) who actually quite like it.

 Essentially, in his arrogance Lennart only needs to code things the way *he*
 sees as useful or expedient to him and his pay masters.  In doing so he throws
 the *nix way of developing software out of the window and creates a convenient
 for him monolith.  Wherever he can't be bothered to do a neat and versatile
 job he makes his own arguably option-limiting decisions and thus we have
 arrived to today's flavour of systemd-udev-pulseaudio-gnome and whatever else
 he will try to weld in tomorrow.  He found like minds in Sievers et al and
 money from RHL helped them get there.

And he also found like minds in some of the kernel developers, and
some people from OpenSUSE, and Arch, and Debian, and Gentoo, and even
Ubuntu, and old Linux gurus like Keith Packard and Neil Brown[1].

 It ain't pretty and architecturally does not follow the *nix design
 principles, but as Canek says, those who can code better should step up to the
 plate and redesign systemd as it should have been done from the start for the
 benefit of Linux, without making the design compromises that Lennart has
 decided suit him.  I don't know if forking systemd is easy, but no one has so
 far decided to do so.

I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
new trying to follow the*nix design principles, but being modern and
with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd
will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of
the people that can code better actually like the systemd design,
and would prefer to contribute to it.

And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck
defining what it means the*nix design principles.

 Given the title of this thread I fear that those of us who can't code, will
 increasingly find our choices becoming limited, because more and more
 functionality is hacked inextricably into systemd and friends.  It's probably
 too early to call if Gentoo will remain one of the few options in Linux that
 do not use systemd, but decisions taken upstream (for example initrd for
 separate /usr) are affecting some us already.

First of all, Gentoo uses systemd if the user so desires (like I do).

Secondly, no one has proposed (AFAIK) systemd as the default init
system for Gentoo, and I don't think no one will in the short term
future.

And to finish, the fact is that people are using systemd because it
works, the design if good (it can be improved, of course; everything
can), and it has attracted a really large flock of talented developers
around it.

No other option offers any interest for people trying to develop new
cool things and design new standards; the only similar (albeit much
more limited in scope) alternative was Upstart, and I personally don't
think it will be maintained for much longer, except for bugs and
security vulnerabilities; it will have no new features.

In general the people not wanting to use systemd don't even care about
its features; they only want the good old SysV (or OpenRC here in
Gentoo), and that nobody touches their systems.

Since OpenRC is the default in Gentoo, and I don't think that will
change anytime soon, they can have that.

Regards.

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/584176/
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-23 Thread Alan McKinnon

On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
 I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
 new trying to follow the*nix design principles, but being modern and
 with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd
 will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of
 the people that can code better actually like the systemd design,
 and would prefer to contribute to it.
 
 And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck
 defining what it means the*nix design principles.


I've been wondering about this concept of the*nix design principles...

I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns.

Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for
modules?
Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build
system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it
modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to
jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back
up the the GPU?
Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it
remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax?
Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit!
Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like?
Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow
thing well? [1]
Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to
be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just
sort of ... congealed

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up
for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define Unix
design principles with specificity so that it is globally applicable.

Best I can come up with is Use common sense and build stuff that can be
used and maintained which is wonderfully descriptive but really sucks
as a definition.



[1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a system
controller. What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
it well?

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
 I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
 new trying to follow the*nix design principles, but being modern and
 with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd
 will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of
 the people that can code better actually like the systemd design,
 and would prefer to contribute to it.

 And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck
 defining what it means the*nix design principles.

 I've been wondering about this concept of the*nix design principles...

 I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns.

Exactly.

 Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for
 modules?
 Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build
 system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it
 modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to
 jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back
 up the the GPU?
 Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it
 remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax?
 Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit!
 Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like?
 Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow
 thing well? [1]
 Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to
 be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just
 sort of ... congealed

 Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up
 for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define Unix
 design principles with specificity so that it is globally applicable.

 Best I can come up with is Use common sense and build stuff that can be
 used and maintained which is wonderfully descriptive but really sucks
 as a definition.

I reached a similar conclusion; Unix principles is, basically,
whatever good idea you can have for a particular problem. Therefore,
almost anything under the sun can be reasonably argued to be following
Unix principles. In particular, all of the examples you listed.

Unix principles says nothing, means nothing, and helps even less to
design anything.

Almost all the people criticizing systemd or Wayland are Unix *users*,
not *developers*. Most Unix/Linux *developers* (not package
maintainers) actually like the changes introduced by systemd and/or
Wayland; of those who not, most of them at least *understand* why a
change was necessary (and long overdue). A minority oppose those
changes vehemently; but at this point, I'm starting to question if
that opposition has technical foundations, or if it's just a gut
reaction to an specific set of developers and/or companies.

 [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a system
 controller. What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
 it well?

Control the system?

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-23 Thread Mick

On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote:
 On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
  I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
  new trying to follow the*nix design principles, but being modern and
  with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd
  will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of
  the people that can code better actually like the systemd design,
  and would prefer to contribute to it.
  
  And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck
  defining what it means the*nix design principles.
 
 I've been wondering about this concept of the*nix design principles...

Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, but here's a starter for 
10:

  http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html

  http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/co-unix4.html

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy


 I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns.
 
 Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for
 modules?

I would think that although the kernel has grown over the years, it has not 
done so like systemd.  You can still *not* build modules you don't need in 
your kernel.


 Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build
 system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it
 modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to
 jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back
 up the the GPU?

The X11 devs saw the error of their ways and ended up breaking up the big 
monolithic Xorg code and releasing it as a modular package since X11 7.0, if I 
recall right.


 Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it
 remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax?
 Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit!
 Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like?
 Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow
 thing well? [1]
 Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to
 be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just
 sort of ... congealed

Designing a programming language is not exactly parallel with designing an OS, 
although similarities exist (e.g. re-use code where you can and don't re-
invent the wheel).


 Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up
 for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define Unix
 design principles with specificity so that it is globally applicable.

The Unix design philosophy may not be globally applicable, but has served 
Linux well over the years.  Lennart has de facto introduced a different way of 
developing his Linux code, which to others and me seems more restrictive.  I 
am not saying that his coding is poor (I'm not qualified to judge), or that 
systemd is wholesale bad.  But, is this a whole new design paradigm in the 
development of Linux that we should applaud and follow, or just a mistake 
borne out of ignorance/arrogance/expedience?

Time will tell.


 [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a system
 controller. What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
 it well?

-- 
Regards,
Mick


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:

[ snip ]

 Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code,

My point exactly.

 but here's a starter for  10:

   http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html

Funny you mention this; the second definition is by Robert Pike, who later said:

Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad.

   http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/co-unix4.html

You can hear in [2] the best response to the famous quote by Henry
Spencer (Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it,
poorly.):

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to quote Henry Spencer.

And that's the point; the people doing this changes *obviously
understand Unix*. They understand it so well that they are able to
look at it honestly, beyond dogma or articles of faith, and see its
downsides, so they can try to fix them.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

This reminds me of the people that quote from religious books to argue
about anything non theological. The rules and sound bites in the
links you provide are there to summarize rules of thumb; they are NOT
scripture, and they are certainly NOT the only way to get a
technically good program that is easily maintainable. In other words,
you can ignore most of them, or just following them to a point, and
anyway end up with a sound design and a technically great program that
is easy to maintain and extend.

The people with coding experience (or most of them anyway) understand
this; we are not a religion, we don't have prophets that speak the
undeniably truth. We have highly skilled developers who can have
opposing views on how to design and implement many different ideas,
and that doesn't (necessarily) means that any of them are wrong.

There are many ways to solve a problem of sets of problems. Having
Emacs doesn't mean vi is wrong, nor having GNOME means KDE is
wrong, nor the other way around.

 I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns.

 Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for
 modules?

 I would think that although the kernel has grown over the years, it has not
 done so like systemd.  You can still *not* build modules you don't need in
 your kernel.

This has nothing to do with Unix principles; it's just that someone
willing and able implemented the different options.

 Is it like X11? A huge monolithic chunk of code that has a bizarre build
 system for years, and took something like 5 years of hard work to get it
 modular? And is 20 years behind the times? And *still* requires devs to
 jump through hoops to get a rendered image through a compositor and back
 up the the GPU?

 The X11 devs saw the error of their ways and ended up breaking up the big
 monolithic Xorg code and releasing it as a modular package since X11 7.0, if I
 recall right.

The X11 devs decided that X11 is crap, and therefore they are working
now in Wayland. Yes, Wayland is basically written by the same people
who maintains X.org. Again, see [2], it's pretty awesome.

 Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it
 remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax?
 Is it like python? Pick ONE way to do it and stick with it dammit!
 Is it like php? Do whatever you feel like?
 Is it like command line text processing tools that only do one narrow
 thing well? [1]
 Is it like bash? I can't find a decent description of how bash came to
 be except it's like Vogons - wasn't designed and didn't evolve, it just
 sort of ... congealed

 Designing a programming language is not exactly parallel with designing an OS,
 although similarities exist (e.g. re-use code where you can and don't re-
 invent the wheel).

I'm pretty sure there are lots of people who vehemently believe that
the Unix principles can apply to everything, even programming
languages. You would be cataloged as an heretic for saying that is not
exactly parallel.

 Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's a prize of 40 internets up
 for the first person who can clearly and unambiguously define Unix
 design principles with specificity so that it is globally applicable.

 The Unix design philosophy may not be globally applicable, but has served
 Linux well over the years.

No; what has served Linux is to have developers willing and able to
write the necessary code, following whatever design they decide is the
correct one.

 Lennart has de facto introduced a different way of
 developing his Linux code, which to others and me seems more restrictive.

First of all, it's not only Lennart; the systemd repo has (literally)
dozens of contributors with write access.

Second of all, calling restrictive the tightly integrated approach,
is exactly as constructive as calling anarchic the loosely
integrated one. Like Unix principles, it means nothing and it says
nothing.

 I am not saying that his coding is poor (I'm not qualified to judge), or that
 systemd is wholesale

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-23 Thread Alan McKinnon

On 24/02/2014 01:12, Mick wrote:
 On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote:
 On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
 I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
 new trying to follow the*nix design principles, but being modern and
 with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd
 will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of
 the people that can code better actually like the systemd design,
 and would prefer to contribute to it.

 And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck
 defining what it means the*nix design principles.

 I've been wondering about this concept of the*nix design principles...
 
 Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, but here's a starter for 
 10:
 
   http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html
 
   http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/co-unix4.html

I really like documents like this, all airy-fairy and giving the
impression that the whole design was worked out nicely in advance. It
wasn't. the doc even quotes this fellow who had nothing to do with the
doc itself:

Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.
--Henry Spencer

Let me tell you how Unix was designed, how the whole thing took shape
once KR had gotten C pretty much stabilized. It is most apparent in IO
error handling in early designs and it goes like this:

We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the
point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially
giving them message stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me,
you fix it.

Doesn't sound like good design does it? Sounds more like do whatever you
think you can get away with. Good design in this area gives you
something conceptually along the lines of try...catch...finally (with
possibly some work done to avoid throwing another exception in the
finally). Unix error design does this:

exit some arb number
and an error message is in $@ if you feel like looking for it

Strangely, this approach is exactly why Unix took off and got such
widespread adoption throughout the 70s. An engineer will understand that
a well-thought out design that is theoretically correct requires an
underlying design that is consistent. In the 70s, hardware consistency
was a joke - every installation was different. Consistent error handling
would severely limit the arches this new OS could run on. By taking a
Stuff it, you deal with it coz I'm not! approach, the handling was
fobbed off to a higher layer that was a) not really able to deal with it
and b) at least in a position to try *something*.

By ripping out the theoretical correctness aspects, devs were left with
something that actually could compile and run. You had to bolt on your
own fancy bits to make it reliable but eventually over time these things
too stabilized into a consistent pattern (mostly by hardware vendors
going bankrupt and their stuff leaving the playing field)

And so we come to what Unix design probably really is:

You do what you have to to get the job done, the simpler the better,
but I'm not *really* gonna hold you to that.

I still don't like what Lennart has done with this project, but I also
fail to see what design principle he has violated.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie

2014-02-23 Thread Walter Dnes

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:07:09AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

 We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the
 point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially
 giving them message stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me,
 you fix it.

  The developer is not going to be psychic to the point of knowing what
the user *WANTED* to do, years after the code was written... or which
different users were expecting which different outcomes.  E.g. if
portage encounters a problem during a build, do you *REALLY* want it to
jump in and randomly patch source code and/or makefiles to get it
working?  NO!!! You want it to halt, with an informative error message,
possibly including suggestions for corrective action.  If I mistakenly
tell a system to do B, really meaning do A, that's my fault.  If I tell
it to do A, and it decides to do B, I will be extremely p'd off.

-- 
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie