On 18/02/2014 23:32, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
And you always can run other legacy logger alongside the journal, and
have both things; binary logs for fast retrieval, and text logs if you
so desire.
Please do not use that phrase legacy in this context.
Classic syslogging is not legacy. It
On 18/02/2014 13:54, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
Shouldn't sysadmins use the init-scripts for that?
If done correctly, permissions should not be an issue.
Restarting services without keeping file ownership into account will
always cause issues. Regardless of the init-system used.
That's
On 18/02/2014 14:16, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Tue, February 18, 2014 12:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 18/02/2014 11:52, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Tue, February 18, 2014 10:47, Alan McKinnon wrote:
What I do run into is daemons that drop privs on start up, like
tac_plus. Unwary new sysadmins always
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2014 23:32, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
And you always can run other legacy logger alongside the journal, and
have both things; binary logs for fast retrieval, and text logs if you
so desire.
Please do not
On 02/18/2014 12:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask
to respect mine as well. That's why
On Wed, February 19, 2014 00:06, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 18/02/2014 14:16, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Tue, February 18, 2014 12:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's a little more complex than just that. It's an auth service and
user
are frequently added, removed and modified. The daemon does syntax
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote:
On 02/18/2014 12:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
Yet again, I respect ones right
Thanks to all who chimed in...
On 2014-02-16 3:27 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
You may have lost it in the link that Volker posted (thanks Volker), but this
comment from HaakonKL probably sums it
On 02/17/2014 06:17 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Thanks to all who chimed in...
On 2014-02-16 3:27 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
You may have lost it in the link that Volker posted (thanks Volker),
but
On 17/02/2014 14:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
In fact, it seems to me that, since (from what I've read) the primary
reason that systemd was written in the first place was to provide
extremely fast boots *in virtualized environments*, having it be a
choice made by selecting a corresponding *profile* is
On Sun, 16 February 2014, at 4:41 pm, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Whatever problems Red Hat are trying to solve in the Red Hat space are
problems that do not affect me, so I do not need Red Hat's solution. As
for Gnome, I have yet to see a valid reason why Gnome *must*
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
[snip]
Maybe it is 'full of errors', but is the primary point true?
False implies whatever you want it to imply. You can't prove anything
if your assumptions are incorrect.
There is actually little code inside PID 1;
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:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:13:39 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
It simply doesn't matter if systemd boils down to one monolithic binary, or
600, if they are tied together in such a way that they can not
*individually* be replaced *easily and simply* (ie, without having to
rewrite the whole
Sorry for entering others' dialog...
On 17.02.2014 21:13, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
[snip]
Can you surgically remove systemd in the future without reverse
engineering
half of what the LSB would look at the time, or
On 2014-02-17 12:52 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
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. The
whole kdbus
On 17/02/2014 17:29, Stroller wrote:
On Sun, 16 February 2014, at 4:41 pm, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Whatever problems Red Hat are trying to solve in the Red Hat space are
problems that do not affect me, so I do not need Red Hat's solution. As
for Gnome, I have yet
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:52:33 -0500 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2014-02-17 12:52 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:52 AM, 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,
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:13:39 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
It simply doesn't matter if systemd boils down to one monolithic binary, or
600, if they are tied together in such a way that they can not
*individually*
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff yks-...@yandex.ru wrote:
Sorry for entering others' dialog...
On 17.02.2014 21:13, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
[snip]
Can you surgically remove systemd in the
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:35:34 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:52 AM, 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
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/02/2014 17:29, Stroller wrote:
On Sun, 16 February 2014, at 4:41 pm, Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Whatever problems Red Hat are trying to solve in the Red Hat space are
problems that do
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz gev...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
How can you be sure if something is large enough if, as you say below,
you do not care about probabilities?
By writing correct code?
SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains
about 13 000
On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]:
1. sysvinit (status quo)
2. systemd
3. upstart
4. openrc (experimental)
5. One system on Linux, something else on non-linux
6. multiple
It should also be
On 16/02/2014 17:46, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]:
1. sysvinit (status quo)
2. systemd
3. upstart
4. openrc (experimental)
5. One system on Linux, something else on
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]:
1. sysvinit (status quo)
2. systemd
3. upstart
4. openrc (experimental)
5.
On 16/02/14 18:41, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 16/02/2014 17:46, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]:
1. sysvinit (status quo)
2. systemd
3. upstart
4. openrc (experimental)
On Sunday 16 Feb 2014 16:50:26 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]:
1. sysvinit
Am 15.02.2014 16:16, schrieb Tanstaafl:
Hi all,
Not to revive a flame-fest against systemd, but...
I'm sure some or most of you have already heard about this, but I
found a really decent thread discussing this whole systemd thing. It
is only really comparing systemd and upstart, as that was
Am 16.02.2014 17:50, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]:
1. sysvinit (status quo)
2.
On 16.02.2014 20:50, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
[ ... ]
It's because they are cons only if you agree with systemd's view of the world.
I do.
Isn't there too many if you believe and if you agree? A church of
systemd? ;)
I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into
On Sunday 16 Feb 2014 19:00:43 Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
On 16.02.2014 20:50, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
[ ... ]
It's because they are cons only if you agree with systemd's view of the
world.
I do.
Isn't there too many if you believe and if you agree? A church of
systemd? ;)
I
On 16.02.2014 23:26, Mick wrote:
On Sunday 16 Feb 2014 19:00:43 Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
[ ... ]
But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money.
Time is money. You have to support two init systems - twice the time,
twice the money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
well or does better than other init process start up systems. The main
objection from what I understand is the removal of choice that systemd
developers have forced upon users, by making certain architectural
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.
And you don't want complexity in
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.
Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why
the TC
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
You may have lost it in the link that Volker posted (thanks Volker), but this
comment from HaakonKL probably sums it up:
... I will give Upstart this though: Should something better come along, you
could replace
Am 16.02.2014 21:27, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
You may have lost it in the link that Volker posted (thanks Volker), but this
comment from HaakonKL probably sums it up:
... I will give Upstart this though: Should
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
Am 16.02.2014 21:19, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
Why GNOME started using it?
because of redhat.
Seriously, you had to ask that?
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
On 16/02/2014 20:11, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 16/02/14 18:41, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 16/02/2014 17:46, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]:
1. sysvinit (status quo)
2.
On 16/02/14 23:28, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 16/02/2014 20:11, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 16/02/14 18:41, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 16/02/2014 17:46, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options
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.
Hi all,
Not to revive a flame-fest against systemd, but...
I'm sure some or most of you have already heard about this, but I found
a really decent thread discussing this whole systemd thing. It is only
really comparing systemd and upstart, as that was the debate going on in
the debian TC,
On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Hi all,
Not to revive a flame-fest against systemd, but...
I'm sure some or most of you have already heard about this, but I found
a really decent thread discussing this whole systemd thing. It is only
really comparing systemd
On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Hi all,
Not to revive a flame-fest against systemd, but...
I'm sure some or most of you have already heard about this, but I found
a really decent thread
On Saturday 15 Feb 2014 17:32:44 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Hi all,
Not to revive a flame-fest against systemd, but...
I'm sure some or most of you
On 02/15/2014 11:32 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
mailto:tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
mailto:tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Hi all,
Not to revive a flame-fest
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 15 Feb 2014 17:32:44 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Hi all,
Not to revive
On 02/15/2014 02:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 15 Feb 2014 17:32:44 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote:
On 02/15/2014 02:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 15 Feb 2014 17:32:44 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, Tanstaafl
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:30:10 -0600
Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote:
On 02/15/2014 11:32 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
mailto:tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
201 - 254 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
