Re: Could russians maintain a traditional linux debian? Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Hi. On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 02:00:53PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Another 'persona' Mr Naturist Linux? Mail headers from <20140303074232.529c2...@m0005296.ppops.net> show us that: Received: from imta-35.everyone.net (imta-35.everyone.net [216.200.145.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.everyone.net", Issuer "DigiCert High Assurance CA-3" (not verified)) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D440D1E9 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:43:18 + (UTC) First e-mail from Mr Naturist Linux I could find <20140302192648.52ada...@m0048140.ppops.net> - has this header: Received: from imta-35.everyone.net (imta-35.everyone.net [216.200.145.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.everyone.net", Issuer "DigiCert High Assurance CA-3" (not verified)) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1136BF; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:32:13 + (UTC) So, even if Arnold Bird and Mr Naturist Linux are two different persons - they are affiliated somehow. Also, as a curious bit - Cc header shows us fredw...@mail.ru. Searching in the d-u maillist shows Mr Fred Wilson as a possible alt of Arnold Bird. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140304075735.GA4781@x101h
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 3/3/14, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 02/03/14 23:21, disbandtechc...@tfwno.gf wrote: >> Notice how the fknuts always try to change the tables. >> "It's YOU who are the shill!" > > OMG you're so right (lol) > > Not that I want to keep you from your work. > In all seriousness, the work of a troll, is important. The troll: *) vaccinates list members against hypocrisy *) galvanises list members together where previously they thought they had major differences, whilst in the face of the troll it's clear we are united *) provides abundant opportunities for some humour and laughter I for one welcome our new troll sanity litmus tester! Welcome to debain-user. And please feed the troll, our sanity mascot. Who wants ponies ... bleh. :) >> Here's an easy way for concurrent boot: >> >> command1 & command2 & command3; >> othercommand1 & othercommand2 & othercommand3; >> thirdsetofcommands1 & thirdsetofcommands2 & thirdsetofcommands3; > > Um, you do know pseudocode is not an actual, um, code. (and that ain't > pseudocode as we know it) Oh come on. Cut the troll some slack already! That looked like code to me, just missing the first line: #!/bin/bash Please! Programming is simple, especially for trolls, which is why we encourage such intelligent design. May the fittest program win. Prematurely aborted systemd experiments might decrease pro-choice init options, so let's not diplocratically eject options. > If you still have your job > tomorrow it'll be with instructions to post from a throwaway email > address - under strict supervision on a temporary contract. Bugger. Given the intelligence emanating from this guy (gal? wouldn't want to presume being sexist here :) , I was kind of hoping that it would not realise that more than the 3 current email addresses could be created for such high discourse. But I guess my hope is a little misplaced... > Now I'm bored (apologies to others who were already beyond boredom). Drat. I do love your dry humour ... although it's probably lost on the target, I'm sure many here enjoy it :) Cheers Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnst3ktf9c8ffqk-nhj7uz8+cdq_h1eoownwdctqvyh3...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Could russians maintain a traditional linux debian? Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 3/4/14, Arnold Bird wrote: > Russia is more traditionally minded these days, it looks like from the > outside. > USA is flip collar up, damn the consequences, individuals have no meaning > (collateral damage (aka reckless and willful murder)), fuck the past, kinda > asshole thinking. > > I hope russians would not wish to jump into a hole just to see how deep it > goes > but instead stay with tried and true methods. The idea of all the unfound > security > holes in systemd that one russian user brought up is something to think > about. Son: Hi ho, hi ho, o-ver the bridge we go! Look pa, what's that under the bridge? Pa: A red eyed troll son, a red eyed troll! Sounds rather crass and discourteous too son. Another 'persona' Mr Naturist Linux? My my, what assumptions I can make with anonymous angry posters ... what's your favourite bait? More swearing? Some Russian denigration? Or fuel you with American denigration? Such subtlety a mailing list has never known. I think you're rather feeble minded actually - seriously unable to hold a position without flaming and swearing. The very definition of an over-bearing troll. I suggest you learn to love yourself. Embrace your inner child - he might feel better. May you find peace, Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsq0oysfyzs0kr7pn1ghf0uxmgnsnxfo5uudwkwjnok...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
- Original Message - From: Celejar To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Sent: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:21:04 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 22:54:33 +0200 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 03 mar 14, 11:27:59, Celejar wrote: > > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > > Depending on RAM size and what you were running at the time you set your > > > computer to hibernate it may just take longer to resume (i.e. read the > > > stuff from slow storage) than to cold boot. This may have been solved in > > > > When you say longer than cold boot, do you really mean longer than cold > > booting plus starting all the stuff you had running in RAM and getting > > them to the state they were in? > > As I said, I have little practical experience with hibernate myself, > this is just what I picked up here on the list. Besides, I wouldn't > trust hibernate with unsaved files and I use lightweight apps as much as > possible, so for me the benefits are just not worth it. I, too, don't like trusting unsaved files to hibernate. But I also wouldn't trust all my individual applications autosaving of files (even where such exist). So when I need to power down the machine, I have two choices: halt and hibernate, and in any event, I'll want to save all important work first. So why would I reboot instead of hiberate? Celejar Because you're on solar power alone, no grid access and you're trying to live in a way that's a little more sustainable and set an example for others. By shutting down your machine and booting it up again when required makes you feel virtuous; or any of the above. Which are all good reasons. Charlie -- ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Registered Linux User:- 329524 *** If you want to build a ship, do not drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. Antoine de Saint-Exupery *** Debian GNU/Linux - just the best way to create magic ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3951657.159881393889023812.javamail.r...@mail.goipstar.com
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 22:54:33 +0200 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 03 mar 14, 11:27:59, Celejar wrote: > > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > > Depending on RAM size and what you were running at the time you set your > > > computer to hibernate it may just take longer to resume (i.e. read the > > > stuff from slow storage) than to cold boot. This may have been solved in > > > > When you say longer than cold boot, do you really mean longer than cold > > booting plus starting all the stuff you had running in RAM and getting > > them to the state they were in? > > As I said, I have little practical experience with hibernate myself, > this is just what I picked up here on the list. Besides, I wouldn't > trust hibernate with unsaved files and I use lightweight apps as much as > possible, so for me the benefits are just not worth it. I, too, don't like trusting unsaved files to hibernate. But I also wouldn't trust all my individual applications autosaving of files (even where such exist). So when I need to power down the machine, I have two choices: halt and hibernate, and in any event, I'll want to save all important work first. So why would I reboot instead of hiberate? Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303172104.dbb5c61de4fdb7c257e37...@gmail.com
Re: Could russians maintain a traditional linux debian? Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Russia is more traditionally minded these days, it looks like from the outside.
USA is flip collar up, da*n the consequences, individuals have no meaning
(collateral damage (aka reckless and willful murder)), f*k the past, kinda
as*h*le thinking.
I hope russians would not wish to jump into a hole just to see how deep it goes
but instead stay with tried and true methods. The idea of all the unfound
security
holes in system("c++") that one russian user brought up is something to think
about.
_
Free e-mail, simple, clean and easy to use. Visit CosmicEmail.com for your
instant free account.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303142014.529de...@m0005296.ppops.net
Re: Could russians maintain a traditional linux debian? Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Russia is more traditionally minded these days, it looks like from the outside. USA is flip collar up, damn the consequences, individuals have no meaning (collateral damage (aka reckless and willful murder)), fuck the past, kinda asshole thinking. I hope russians would not wish to jump into a hole just to see how deep it goes but instead stay with tried and true methods. The idea of all the unfound security holes in systemd that one russian user brought up is something to think about. All I see from american posters is just an absolute disrespect for anyone not jumping on the bandwagon of New! It feels like an intelligence scheme to me. There is no substance to the systemd arguments, only demands that everyone shut up and the the decision has been made. And linux is not about choice. Very totalitarian. Americans and their european toy dogs should not be allowed to control the fate of all linux users and linux program developers by forcing the gargantuan root privleged backdoor known as systemd on everyone. They have done so via politics and lies, as is their tradition. They found weaknesses in the structures of distribution governances and exploited them. They put their people into key positions and have wone rigged votes. Debian needs to be forked. We cannot be forced into a systemd plantation. A general resolution is needed to make an official traditional distribution of debian, to compete with the overtaken distribution of debian. I have used and developed on debian for 13 years and see what has happened for what it is. --- recovery...@gmail.com wrote: From: Reco To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Could russians maintain a traditional linux debian? Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:50:04 +0400 On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:42:32 -0800 "Arnold Bird" wrote: > Would it be possible for russia to maintain a classic > debian linux distribution and let the american and their > controled european employees to waddle into the morass > of systemd? You're putting it wrong way. Everyone knows that in Soviet Russia Debian maintains people, not the other way around :) Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303205004.beda9c0620f65f4d7f41d...@gmail.com _ Free e-mail, simple, clean and easy to use. Visit CosmicEmail.com for your instant free account. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303141031.529df...@m0005296.ppops.net
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Lu, 03 mar 14, 11:27:59, Celejar wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > Depending on RAM size and what you were running at the time you set your > > computer to hibernate it may just take longer to resume (i.e. read the > > stuff from slow storage) than to cold boot. This may have been solved in > > When you say longer than cold boot, do you really mean longer than cold > booting plus starting all the stuff you had running in RAM and getting > them to the state they were in? As I said, I have little practical experience with hibernate myself, this is just what I picked up here on the list. Besides, I wouldn't trust hibernate with unsaved files and I use lightweight apps as much as possible, so for me the benefits are just not worth it. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Lu, 03 mar 14, 13:04:07, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 3/3/2014 7:28 AM, Fred Wilson wrote: > >I really don't see how 10 seconds or a minute more can hurt anyone. If > >you reboot more often, then it's different. But boot time is minor > >issue. > > My understanding about the fast boot times argument is that it was > driven by Redhat and their work with virtualization. The Author claims otherwise http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 3/3/2014 7:28 AM, Fred Wilson wrote: I really don't see how 10 seconds or a minute more can hurt anyone. If you reboot more often, then it's different. But boot time is minor issue. My understanding about the fast boot times argument is that it was driven by Redhat and their work with virtualization. In highly virtualized environments, where VMs can be spun up and down quite often, fast startup times - and more importantly, the LOADS that these startups place on the underlying metal - become much more meaningful. Think Amazon Web Services, etc, and thousands and thousands of VMs all booting at the same time... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5314c417.5000...@libertytrek.org
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 3/3/2014 7:30 AM, Fred Wilson wrote: Please look at what technical superiority of systemd consists of and then tell us if an ordinary user needs it. What systemd brings is something usefull only for companies that has money to pay for high-end servers, clusters, supercomputers and can get a clue who may some of them be. I made this very same argument a long time ago... but am not quite so adamant about it now as I once was. Much of the negative stuff about systemd going around is pure FUD. If mega-users want to use systemd and other mega-software let them, but let ordinary users use what suits them as well. I like and fully support this idea... but ianap, and don't have the money or resources to make sure it happens... do you? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5314c40f.5060...@libertytrek.org
Re: Could russians maintain a traditional linux debian? Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:42:32 -0800 "Arnold Bird" wrote: > Would it be possible for russia to maintain a classic > debian linux distribution and let the american and their > controled european employees to waddle into the morass > of systemd? You're putting it wrong way. Everyone knows that in Soviet Russia Debian maintains people, not the other way around :) Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303205004.beda9c0620f65f4d7f41d...@gmail.com
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:59:06 +0200 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 03 mar 14, 10:40:52, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > > Andrei POPESCU writes: ... > > > Hibernation has it's own set of problems, especially as RAM sizes go up. > > > > I am interested in this issue. Could you tell some more about this? > > Depending on RAM size and what you were running at the time you set your > computer to hibernate it may just take longer to resume (i.e. read the > stuff from slow storage) than to cold boot. This may have been solved in When you say longer than cold boot, do you really mean longer than cold booting plus starting all the stuff you had running in RAM and getting them to the state they were in? Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303112759.dfc6326696783afe374a6...@gmail.com
Could russians maintain a traditional linux debian? Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Arnold Bird writes: > Would it be possible for russia to maintain a classic > debian linux distribution It would support the kremvax architecture but have some nietwork problems -- /\ ___Ubuntu: ancient /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word //--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can \/ coltivatore diretto di software not install già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian" Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21268.43925.541709.695...@mail.eng.it
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Lu, 03 mar 14, 14:29:16, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > Andrei POPESCU writes:
> >
> > Systemd can help a bit in making a little easier to have tools that
> > satisfy the (not so) basic need "to have this device mounted here if
> > it is plugged, otherwise go ahead with the bootstrap" for the
> > completely tech-unsavy user, but you can achieve this with system V
> > init. If you want to do it.
>
> This shouldn't be necessary.
I meant that systemd may make things a little easier. But it will not
enable them. They are already possible, nobody cared to do it. IMHO!
> Exactly what I was trying to say. systemd may not "really" be necessary
> for us, but what about...
It seems that we disagree on many issues mostly due communication problems :).
I apologize for my poor English skills.
systemd could improve the experience of some users, i.e. by making the
boot faster.
Or the system may react better to runtime HW changes - even if I would
give the credit to udev.
> > > But, how am I going to do that for my
> > > father's laptop, which I *might* be able to access remotely?
> >
> > Excuse me, could you re-state this sentence. I am unable to understand
> > the point, sorry that is due my poor English skills.
>
> ... my father running Debian on his laptop? If he relocates to a foreign
> country, buys a 3G adapter and plugs it in what should happen?
Until there is a way to let TCP/IP packet flow, there is a solution
for this problem.
And I do not think that systemd will make the system more robust on
the long run. It could make it weaker on the short run, it is software
after all.
> > > This is a joke right? If I tell a daemon to restart I want it
> > > restarted. Now. Anything else is like the tail wagging the dog.
> >
> > Sorry, no, or I could equally say "I want an Aston Martin parked in
> > the company yard. Now and anything else is like the tail wagging the
> > dog".
>
> Actually not. As I see it the computer is a tool built to do what *I*
> say and *when* I say it, not to create more work for me. Especially if
> it's only a Simple Matter of Programming (which turns out to not be so
> simple, since it took so many years to do it).
Sorry Andrei, but there is not such thing as "Simple Matter of Programming".
Let me quote the my favourite entry from the Hacker Jargon File, v 4.0.0
:programming: /n./ 1. The art of debugging a blank sheet of
paper (or, in these days of on-line editing, the art of debugging
an empty file). "Bloody instructions which, being taught, return
to plague their inventor" ("Macbeth", Act 1, Scene 7) 2. A
pastime similar to banging one's head against a wall, but with
fewer opportunities for reward. 3. The most fun you can have with
your clothes on (although clothes are not mandatory).
> > And when you terminate a program you want to restart, you have to wait
> > for that program to be terminated to be sure all resources are
> > released.
>
> What if it doesn't do that and it just hangs?
If it hangs then it's time for the human brain to start working.
> > And in this systemd has no more power than a script. It has to issue
> > the stopping signal, wait for the process to die and let free the
> > resources it used, and finally start a new one.
>
> What if it just won't die? systemd's answer to that is cgroups.
Would be the automatic choice a good one? Maybe on a simple PC w/o
networked file systems...
> > And, AFAIK, if a process is not son of some other process then is son
> > of init by 'adoption'.
>
> But sysvinit is not actually used to manage processes, so this special
> power of PID 1 is wasted.
init is not meant to manage processes, just to bring the system up to the
required runlevel and to drive the shutdown.
I fear that overloading the init process with more responsabilities
would not be a good idea: more "pieces" involved, a less simple tool.
"Keep It Simple, Stupid" aka Kiss Principle. It is good in mechanic,
it is good in software.
> Debian is already late to the party. Just about every other major
> distribution/OS is already running something better than sysv-rc (and
> I'm including OpenRC in the "something better").
Frankly, at home we are almost perfectly happy with system v init, we
only feels it lacks explicit dependencies that may let do some partial
sorting on the services to start.
But is perfectly legitimate to have different opinions!
Best regards!
--
/\ ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word
//--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software not install
già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian"
Could russians maintain a traditional linux debian? Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Would it be possible for russia to maintain a classicdebian linux distribution and let the american and theircontroled european employees to waddle into the morassof systemd?Linus is half bought and paied for too, he uses fedora withall the mess. He was asked if he was asked to put in abackdoor into linux. He said no but nodded yes, so he obeyed the US government's order not to speak about itto some degree. Free e-mail, simple, clean and easy to use. Visit CosmicEmail.com for your instant free account. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303074232.529c2...@m0005296.ppops.net
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Lu, 03 mar 14, 14:29:16, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > Andrei POPESCU writes: > > Systemd can help a bit in making a little easier to have tools that > satisfy the (not so) basic need "to have this device mounted here if > it is plugged, otherwise go ahead with the bootstrap" for the > completely tech-unsavy user, but you can achieve this with system V > init. If you want to do it. This shouldn't be necessary. > > we (and by this I mean mostly debian-user subscribers) are tinkerers, > > otherwise we wouldn't be here. > > WARNING! If I got right your words, this is a damn narrow-sighted > point of view. If you stop a moment and and think, you may see how > many user of Debian GNU/Linux may exists that do not access this > mailing list. Or do not access any. Exactly what I was trying to say. systemd may not "really" be necessary for us, but what about... > > But, how am I going to do that for my > > father's laptop, which I *might* be able to access remotely? > > Excuse me, could you re-state this sentence. I am unable to understand > the point, sorry that is due my poor English skills. ... my father running Debian on his laptop? If he relocates to a foreign country, buys a 3G adapter and plugs it in what should happen? > > This is a joke right? If I tell a daemon to restart I want it > > restarted. Now. Anything else is like the tail wagging the dog. > > Sorry, no, or I could equally say "I want an Aston Martin parked in > the company yard. Now and anything else is like the tail wagging the > dog". Actually not. As I see it the computer is a tool built to do what *I* say and *when* I say it, not to create more work for me. Especially if it's only a Simple Matter of Programming (which turns out to not be so simple, since it took so many years to do it). > We agree that there are "some steps involved" between "wanting the > Astong Martin" and getting one. > > The same is for restarting a service (provided by a daemon). > > If you want a daemon to restart you either have a daemon that can > completely resets itself upon receiving, say, SIGHUP or you need to > terminate the previous instance and start a new one. > > And when you terminate a program you want to restart, you have to wait > for that program to be terminated to be sure all resources are > released. What if it doesn't do that and it just hangs? > And in this systemd has no more power than a script. It has to issue > the stopping signal, wait for the process to die and let free the > resources it used, and finally start a new one. What if it just won't die? systemd's answer to that is cgroups. Is this the "best" solution? I couldn't say. There's at least the problem that cgroups is Linux specific. AFAIU BSD jails could provide similar functionality, but chances of this ever being implemented in systemd are slim. Not so with OpenRC, which is much more modular and portable (which is why I think it *could* be the better solution in the long run). > And, AFAIK, if a process is not son of some other process then is son > of init by 'adoption'. But sysvinit is not actually used to manage processes, so this special power of PID 1 is wasted. > My opinion that the migration was too swift. I am almost sure that > a less "disruptive" way was possible provided some more time. > > systemd will be not as evil as I feared when I was first pointed to > some random document. It could add even some good in the long run. But > this too early migration will give some troubles to someone, I am in > this set. Debian is already late to the party. Just about every other major distribution/OS is already running something better than sysv-rc (and I'm including OpenRC in the "something better"). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Fred Wilson writes: > What systemd brings is something usefull only for companies that has > money to pay for high-end servers, clusters, supercomputers I mostly disagree with this point of view, since these machine rarely stop. There could be some benefit in elastic provision ov VMs and if you choose to use green policies that require the shutdown of a physical machine. But again, hybernation could be a better choice. I see systemd as something that address more small system user-needs than big-iron user-needs. -- /\ ___Ubuntu: ancient /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word //--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can \/ coltivatore diretto di software not install già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian" Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21268.34704.640314.919...@mail.eng.it
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 12:52:40PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: own personal computers my sentiments are similar. However my business purposes involve meeting SLAs so reboots once or twice a year can cost a lot of money - so in those circumstances a few minutes makes a lot of difference. Perhaps that's not something you care about - or it's just Sorry, I don’t buy this. If your systems are virtual machines then a reboot is already fast. Filesystem checks may delay the reboot, or applications that need minutes to stop or start, but systemd doesn’t help here either. If your systems are real server hardware then your reboot is mainly delayed by the BIOS. Here any server (blade or normal) takes much longer from BIOS to bootloader than from bootloader to login prompt. Fast booting was not the sole criteria for which it was selected by Debian for the *Linux* kernel. True, but I don’t need any of the new features (never had any problems with sysvinit). So why should I change? Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan Seitz E-Mail: s...@fsing.rootsland.net | | Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html | smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Andrei POPESCU writes: > > I completely disagree. I had quite a nicely complex storage server > > with trunking and multipath things on, and it was sane and clean. > > Until one looks under the hood :( With "under the hood" you mean the assembler code? I did the configuration using the documentation and maybe a couple of suggestion from my wife... There was nothing mad. > > What was a bit 'magic' was iSCSI, but I doubt it was due init! > > > > On my laptop-used-as-a-desktop, I solved any problem quite sanely, > > even if it involved skills, skills that I borrowed from my wife (who > > "has any AIX certification IBM provided an exam for" :) :) :) :)): > > > > - my external, always plugged, HD is automatically mounted with LVM > > provided I see its id in lsusb output. > > > > - usb keys have their label. > > > > This is extremely sane. It is also a bit for tech savy not for end > > users. > > Which basically proves my point. "proving your point"? N, mine is a *very customized* machine, you can't do such a customization with standard issue stuff :) :) :) :). Maybe mine are a bit old-fashoned solutions, they are running this way since several years now. > This stuff should Just Work (tm). ...And the magic money gnomes bring the montly wages :) :) :) Systemd can help a bit in making a little easier to have tools that satisfy the (not so) basic need "to have this device mounted here if it is plugged, otherwise go ahead with the bootstrap" for the completely tech-unsavy user, but you can achieve this with system V init. If you want to do it. > we (and by this I mean mostly debian-user subscribers) are tinkerers, > otherwise we wouldn't be here. WARNING! If I got right your words, this is a damn narrow-sighted point of view. If you stop a moment and and think, you may see how many user of Debian GNU/Linux may exists that do not access this mailing list. Or do not access any. > But, how am I going to do that for my > father's laptop, which I *might* be able to access remotely? Excuse me, could you re-state this sentence. I am unable to understand the point, sorry that is due my poor English skills. Anywaty, if you have no access to a machine it's hard to work on it. But I was sysadmin in other's (spare|lost) time :), as I might have said before [and as my signature says in Italian]. I had a couple of rack under my controls, and the only times I had to move (3 hrs by high speed train) was when there were cables to remove and screws to unscrew... > > > If you don't believe me just do > > > > > > grep sleep /etc/init.d/* > > > > You should do a step further. Go and watch what each one does. > > > > The large majority of sleeps is used in restarting a daemon > > (/etc/init.d/some-devil restart), to wait that the kill has succeeded > > before restarting the daemon itself. > > This is a joke right? If I tell a daemon to restart I want it restarted. > Now. Anything else is like the tail wagging the dog. Sorry, no, or I could equally say "I want an Aston Martin parked in the company yard. Now and anything else is like the tail wagging the dog". We agree that there are "some steps involved" between "wanting the Astong Martin" and getting one. The same is for restarting a service (provided by a daemon). If you want a daemon to restart you either have a daemon that can completely resets itself upon receiving, say, SIGHUP or you need to terminate the previous instance and start a new one. And when you terminate a program you want to restart, you have to wait for that program to be terminated to be sure all resources are released. And in this systemd has no more power than a script. It has to issue the stopping signal, wait for the process to die and let free the resources it used, and finally start a new one. Code it with shell, code it with C, you have to code the instructions. > Rogue daemons, Could you introduce me some? Don't take this as a provocation. I know of daemons that do a "fire and forget" spawn of a process to serve a single request, then the process dies. And, AFAIK, if a process is not son of some other process then is son of init by 'adoption'. But I know I run a subset of Debian programs, so there are program I never run. > > And while 20 years ago I could have been on the "go systemd go" side, > > today I still think that there are things that could have done better > > with less problems given to the "server running" guys with no cost > > given to "pc running" guys except waiting a bit more. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating systemd. I've followed the -ctte > debate quite closely and my own conclusions are: > > - sysv-rc and all the initscripts are a nightmare to maintain (and have > been for quite a while) The use of explicit dependencies is something really needed. Even if you do not have to handle all the possible scripts in a distribution
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:53:28 -0600 y...@marupa.net wrote: > Which probably demonstrates why there's no hidden agenda going on surrounding > systemd and there were legitimate reasons why it was finally chosen. Of course there were legitimate reasons, but only those reasons that are important for mega-organizations. > The trouble is, how effectively can the NSA hook itself into open source > software? How easily could they get backdoors into something without upstream > noticing? Might be effective getting hooks into something downstream, but I > don't see the NSA getting anything into something upstream without someone > noticing, since patches are generally reviewed before integration. > > To sum up my thought on that, the NSA needs cooperation from someone OUTSIDE > the NSA to get their hooks in. How likely is it a Debian package maintainer > would be compromised? Would someone else notice? Would the maintainer be > removed? > > I'm not saying it's implausible so much as it doesn't sound like it'd last > long if they could get something in. Could you perhaps give me some insight > into ways the NSA could do this? I just don't see most upstream people > cooperating. Can the NSA force anyone to actually put backdoors in their own > code? For systemd, they for sure don't need to hook anyting in. Such complex software like systemd, written in hurry can only have enormous number of security holes and it'll take a long time until they are reasonlaby fixed. Such tight integration with high-level software on one side and kernel/udev(hardware) on the other hand clearly shows how the attacker can easily penetrate the whole system. They just need to find they and take advantage of already existing bugs. And after that, they'll probably even report them to the free software community. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303122928.GA7025@cape
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 10:53:51 + Jack wrote: > On 02/03/2014 05:11, Eric Newcomb wrote: > > Technical issues aside, I went through the list of members of the > > tech-ctte, found here: https://www.debian.org/intro/organization. I > > searched each name on the list on Google, and I can't honestly find > > any evidence that the committee is "stacked" with Redhat and/or > > Canonical employees. I'd like to see some proof of these assertions > > before I'd give any credence to claims of conspiracy. > > I also disapprove of such claims. It's unfortunate that the CTTE split > in the way that it did. But I followed the discussion on bug 727708 with > considerable interest; it was a serious, open technical discussion. You > need proper evidence, not just suspicions, to start chucking around such > claims. You can see if people are capable for other opinions only when they are faced with real arguments that show they are wrong. And that happened from sysvinit supporters, and you can see how sysvinit supporters were treated. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303123120.GA7120@cape
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 19:30:08 -0600 y...@marupa.net wrote: > For example, initscripts are so VERY not portable. I am sorry to say this, > but > it is true. In theory they should be, as you state, according the UNIX > Philosophy they should be. But here comes the problem of that philosophy > assuming every UNIX/UNIX-like works the same and has the same tools. Since many distos went to systemd, now in fact it isn't so important to be portable, isn't it? On the other hand, initscripts are quite portable inside Debian, i.e. to alternative kernels (KFreeBSD, Hurd). > In a VM, you should try copying a Debian initscript into another SysV-using > Linux distribution. It doesn't work. Portable initscripts just don't happen. > Would be nice, but they don't. > Another reason this is good is notice how much time you'd have to take to > figure out what, exactly, the initscript is doing. Is it starting the daemon > yet? Or is it still laying the framework? Why is it doing things that way? > > While in unit files you may wonder what one option is, it's a quick man page > away, but initscripts will require good documented code and a reasonable > skill > at reading the language. That's because init scripts were from beginning written without real planning and every distro was taking into consideration only it's own situation. But besides this, it would be much simpler to fix this then make systemd. > Let's go over the fact it's a nightmare to debug initscripts and they still > frequently hit failures such as losing control of their associated daemon. > That's bad. Init script doesn't need any control of the associated daemon. If software crash, then you need to fix the software, and on other hand, it's simple to write monitoring shell scripts that will restart crashed processes, but it's dangerous because crash can disturb something and restarting your server after crash without analysis of the situration can make bad cosequences (data damage/loss, security holes...). > Systemd basically fixes some problems and also adds a few features I think > Linux has been in desperate need for: Concurrent dependency launch, reliable > process control, the journal, the udev merge makes sure that things services > need are available when they need them. It also provides ways to track the > states of all your units and even look into why they failed. Sadly, > initscripts usually chuck all errors into /dev/null, which isn't helpful. startpar already does concurent dependency launch, process control is quite reliable and only mega-users need something better, neither they need journal, udev makes you much problems, all you need is to find out what module to insert for your hardware and community orientation makes this information easily spread over the whole Linux community. > Oh, as for portability, the way systemd works means unit files are pretty > much > guaranteed to work no matter where they run provided of course their > associated software exists. Can't expect Apache to launch if Apache's not > installed. The only exceptions are probably in cases where a unit might call > a > script or something that presumes a specific configuration. Not only this, but similarly with shell scripts, dependancies may have different name in another distro. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303123049.GA7097@cape
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:20:44 +0900 Joel Rees wrote: > You grow up. Technically inferior stuff always seems to get the money, > but you get to live in the results of your choices. On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 19:00:40 -0600 y...@marupa.net wrote: > > > Doesn't make the decision to drop SysV Init, a system even its own > > > maintainer says is a pile of garbage, in favor of systemd, any less > > > technically sound. > > flame away, flame away > > > > Call it a flame all you want, but it's still deprecated and it's not for no > reason Linux distributors are trying to get as far away from SysV as > possible. > And no, that reason isn't "Red Hat is trying to take over." Try actually > researching the actual technical reasons systemd exists for once. They are > almost innumerable. Please look at what technical superiority of systemd consists of and then tell us if an ordinary user needs it. What systemd brings is something usefull only for companies that has money to pay for high-end servers, clusters, supercomputers and can get a clue who may some of them be. For ordinary users and even enterprises, it can be really called useless because with much less lines of code all of that could have been implemented on top of sysvinit and shell scripts. We simpy must separate ordinary users from mega-users because their interests are simply totally different. If mega-users want to use systemd and other mega-software let them, but let ordinary users use what suits them as well. On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:30:57 -0600 y...@marupa.net wrote: > I responded with technical reasons. Shortsightedness has nothing to do with > it. The fact you disagree with it and call it a flame doesn't make my reasons > any less technical. You still haven't listed one TECHNICAL reason why systemd > is a bad idea. On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 19:00:40 -0600 y...@marupa.net wrote: > Oh, how will I ever live with a faster boot, more reliable process control, > unit files that are easier to write and maintain than initscripts, socket- > activated daemons, concurrently-launched dependency-based service startup, > the > fact that I use Archlinux and it actually went FROM a BSD-style init TO > systemd, a logger I can actually efficiently navigate with metadata, and a > more > unified device and configuration infrastructure? > > Life is so horrible for me thanks to how easy systemd makes maintaining my > system. I have seen the light! I'm sure you could find a way to use your computer without software like systemd. You will save some time, but you will lose your freedom. Bad trade for my preference. BTW, that's what Windows is doing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303123022.GA7074@cape
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
> I want to do number crunching, I don't want to be bothered by the boot > process. It works. If I have to go make coffee while the boot process > is happening, I'll go make coffee. While your invisible guests are doing somthing similar inside your computer? :D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303122958.GA7051@cape
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:52:40 +1100 Scott Ferguson wrote: > Which is fine for you, and I can understand and appreciate that, for my > own personal computers my sentiments are similar. However my business > purposes involve meeting SLAs so reboots once or twice a year can cost a > lot of money - so in those circumstances a few minutes makes a lot of > difference. Perhaps that's not something you care about - or it's just > convenient to ignore until your bank/phone/stockbroker/shopping is > interrupted as a result. Perhaps you simply put your "needs" before > those of others - assuredly inadvertently. > > Given the interest displayed by "home users", and those that develop for > embedded platforms, in fast boot times, I suspect your needs aren't > stereotypical of all the users that Debian The Universal Operating > System seeks to support. I really don't see how 10 seconds or a minute more can hurt anyone. If you reboot more often, then it's different. But boot time is minor issue. On the other hands, we've already seen how companies are doing it: first they are going to impress us with fast boot and then everyone start using it, and then slowly they insert more and more crap into the boot process, since not boot system is fast and it's no problem and after a few years your system is again slow as before, unless you buy a new machine. And BTW looks like Moore's low is not as before and computers are becoming more expensive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303122840.GA7002@cape
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:41 PM, NoTo CTTE wrote: > Systemd is over 200,000 lines of ring0 running bullshit. > Regular inits are under 10k lines of code inclusive. > Some are 100 lines of code. > > Hmm which is easier to find exploits in. > SystemD. > > Notice how the [...] Just for the record, I consider this post to be a reverse shill, an attempt to get all arguments against systemd painted with the broad brush of fanatacism, misplaced fundamentalism, and sheer lunacy. -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iNZsC7TN=tzo5b7ktbb1xnxunviv8l7ommba0hpltg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Lu, 03 mar 14, 10:40:52, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > Andrei POPESCU writes: > > On Du, 02 mar 14, 18:09:46, ghaverla wrote: > > > > > > Systemd seems to have 2 proponents, people interested in fast booting, > > > and people interested in servers. The intersection of those two groups > > > is almost the NULL set. I think the answer to faster booting is > > > hibernation, and people have been playing with that for many years as > > > near as I can tell. To the people running servers who want faster > > > booting, I would suggest that they not turn the things off. > > > > Hibernation has it's own set of problems, especially as RAM sizes go up. > > I am interested in this issue. Could you tell some more about this? Depending on RAM size and what you were running at the time you set your computer to hibernate it may just take longer to resume (i.e. read the stuff from slow storage) than to cold boot. This may have been solved in the meantime (compression, optimisations, whatever), because I'm running sid hibernate is not really useful for me. > > > It isn't change is evil, the saying is if it isn't broken, don't fix it. > > > > But things *are* broken. Any computer with more than 1 (one) storage > > device (not hot pluggable please) and 1 (one) wired network connection > > (IPv4, not IPv6) with a static configuration and all other devices > > connected at boot needs more than sysvinit + sysv-rc can handle sanely. > > I completely disagree. I had quite a nicely complex storage server > with trunking and multipath things on, and it was sane and clean. Until one looks under the hood :( > What was a bit 'magic' was iSCSI, but I doubt it was due init! > > On my laptop-used-as-a-desktop, I solved any problem quite sanely, > even if it involved skills, skills that I borrowed from my wife (who > "has any AIX certification IBM provided an exam for" :) :) :) :)): > > - my external, always plugged, HD is automatically mounted with LVM > provided I see its id in lsusb output. > > - usb keys have their label. > > This is extremely sane. It is also a bit for tech savy not for end > users. Which basically proves my point. This stuff should Just Work (tm). Yes, we (and by this I mean mostly debian-user subscribers) are tinkerers, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But, how am I going to do that for my father's laptop, which I *might* be able to access remotely? > > If you don't believe me just do > > > > grep sleep /etc/init.d/* > > You should do a step further. Go and watch what each one does. > > The large majority of sleeps is used in restarting a daemon > (/etc/init.d/some-devil restart), to wait that the kill has succeeded > before restarting the daemon itself. This is a joke right? If I tell a daemon to restart I want it restarted. Now. Anything else is like the tail wagging the dog. > A DBUS system could indeed make things cleaner (I wolud like to know > the cost). > > But restart is never invoked by init in bootstrap or shutdown. > > Therefore I really can't see the issue with the use for sleep. True, > with messages that could be cleaner... > > Maybe. Easy example: write an event driven POP client and compare the > code with some other doing sleeps :). > > > And let's not forget about: remote shares, remote storage, encrypted > > storage, local hot-plugged devices (not limited to storage), dynamic > > network configuration (especially with IPv6), etc. > > Except storage, the other stuff is "personal pc stuff". What is good > on a personal pc may not be good on a server - and vice versa. They > look the same (for low end servers), but they are not. Rogue daemons, duplicated code (for the forking), etc. And no, "this could be done with (x)inetd/daemontools/whatever" is not an answer, because it hasn't been done. > And while 20 years ago I could have been on the "go systemd go" side, > today I still think that there are things that could have done better > with less problems given to the "server running" guys with no cost > given to "pc running" guys except waiting a bit more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating systemd. I've followed the -ctte debate quite closely and my own conclusions are: - sysv-rc and all the initscripts are a nightmare to maintain (and have been for quite a while) - systemd is the best we've got *at the moment* - OpenRC *could* be a great alternative If I had the skills I would be helping out with OpenRC development/integration/etc. I plan to test it as soon as some mechanism as simple as 'apt-get install openrc and set init=whatever' is available and documented. Right now I would have to remove sysv-rc, which I'm not prepared to do, even though I've been running with 'init=/bin/systemd' for quite a while. I believe the fact that the upstart maintainers did not include such an easy mechanism from the beginning (2006 in experimental and 2009 in unstable and testing) has contributed a lot to upstart ha
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Andrei POPESCU writes: > On Du, 02 mar 14, 18:09:46, ghaverla wrote: > > > > Systemd seems to have 2 proponents, people interested in fast booting, > > and people interested in servers. The intersection of those two groups > > is almost the NULL set. I think the answer to faster booting is > > hibernation, and people have been playing with that for many years as > > near as I can tell. To the people running servers who want faster > > booting, I would suggest that they not turn the things off. > > Hibernation has it's own set of problems, especially as RAM sizes go up. I am interested in this issue. Could you tell some more about this? > > It isn't change is evil, the saying is if it isn't broken, don't fix it. > > But things *are* broken. Any computer with more than 1 (one) storage > device (not hot pluggable please) and 1 (one) wired network connection > (IPv4, not IPv6) with a static configuration and all other devices > connected at boot needs more than sysvinit + sysv-rc can handle sanely. I completely disagree. I had quite a nicely complex storage server with trunking and multipath things on, and it was sane and clean. What was a bit 'magic' was iSCSI, but I doubt it was due init! On my laptop-used-as-a-desktop, I solved any problem quite sanely, even if it involved skills, skills that I borrowed from my wife (who "has any AIX certification IBM provided an exam for" :) :) :) :)): - my external, always plugged, HD is automatically mounted with LVM provided I see its id in lsusb output. - usb keys have their label. This is extremely sane. It is also a bit for tech savy not for end users. > If you don't believe me just do > > grep sleep /etc/init.d/* You should do a step further. Go and watch what each one does. The large majority of sleeps is used in restarting a daemon (/etc/init.d/some-devil restart), to wait that the kill has succeeded before restarting the daemon itself. A DBUS system could indeed make things cleaner (I wolud like to know the cost). But restart is never invoked by init in bootstrap or shutdown. Therefore I really can't see the issue with the use for sleep. True, with messages that could be cleaner... Maybe. Easy example: write an event driven POP client and compare the code with some other doing sleeps :). > And let's not forget about: remote shares, remote storage, encrypted > storage, local hot-plugged devices (not limited to storage), dynamic > network configuration (especially with IPv6), etc. Except storage, the other stuff is "personal pc stuff". What is good on a personal pc may not be good on a server - and vice versa. They look the same (for low end servers), but they are not. And while 20 years ago I could have been on the "go systemd go" side, today I still think that there are things that could have done better with less problems given to the "server running" guys with no cost given to "pc running" guys except waiting a bit more. -- /\ ___Ubuntu: ancient /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word //--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can \/ coltivatore diretto di software not install già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian" Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21268.20004.679370.910...@mail.eng.it
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 06:09:46PM -0700, ghaverla wrote: [BIG snip] > With Respect To boot times, I would think moving to a specialised shell > that had no interactive capability (such as Gnu Readline) might be a > place to start. That the "shell" often had to invoke subshells to do > things, to me might be a reason to try Perl to boot a system. Just as > a trial, Perl is big. But once you get it up and running, it doesn't > need to invoke inferior processes for many tasks, and is capable of > starting binaries with calculated arguments. This has (at least partly) been achieved by making the default shell "dash", rather than "bash". dash is significantly faster, and (as far as I can see) a drop-in replacement. This is not an attempt to claim that no futher improvements are wanted - but the difference dash made was significant. -- Karl E. Jorgensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140303085729.GA12793@hawking
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Du, 02 mar 14, 18:09:46, ghaverla wrote: > > Systemd seems to have 2 proponents, people interested in fast booting, > and people interested in servers. The intersection of those two groups > is almost the NULL set. I think the answer to faster booting is > hibernation, and people have been playing with that for many years as > near as I can tell. To the people running servers who want faster > booting, I would suggest that they not turn the things off. Hibernation has it's own set of problems, especially as RAM sizes go up. > It isn't change is evil, the saying is if it isn't broken, don't fix it. But things *are* broken. Any computer with more than 1 (one) storage device (not hot pluggable please) and 1 (one) wired network connection (IPv4, not IPv6) with a static configuration and all other devices connected at boot needs more than sysvinit + sysv-rc can handle sanely. If you don't believe me just do grep sleep /etc/init.d/* And let's not forget about: remote shares, remote storage, encrypted storage, local hot-plugged devices (not limited to storage), dynamic network configuration (especially with IPv6), etc. > Up until a month or so ago, I wouldn't know Lennart from a hole in the > ground. He has a history with projects. Someone suggested he may not > have started Pulse, I don't know. As far as I know, there are still > problems with Pulse. I will not install Pulse on any system I set up, > and if someone wants me to take care of their Linux box, Pulse gets > removed. He may not have started Avahi, I don't know. I disable avahi > daemons and executables as a matter of course, for much more than 1 > year. My beef with Avahi? For my LAN, I have 0 need. Why is it > required? Chmod 640 and the problem is more or less gone. But I still > have the useless downloads, which cuts into my bandwidth and possibly > monthly allowance. I don't want to download stuff I don't want or > need. I have no idea if "avahi" is finished? Avoiding the need to do stuff like 'chmod 640' is exactly the reason we need something more capable than sysvinit + sysv-rc. If I (as the administrator of *my* computer) tell the system a specific service is not to be started than it should stay like this. Why should I even have to apply such hacks when all I need is 'service stop'. OpenRC could be very interesting, but unfortunately its integration with Debian is lagging behind systemd and most Debian Developers (including the sysv-rc maintainers) don't want to stay with sysv-rc longer than absolutely necessary, which in this case is the release of Jessie (due to the Debian commitment to support stable upgrades). > I read the Free Software/FOSS/Libre news a lot. And I have more than a > decade. I didn't see news that init scripts are broken. Because it's not news? SCNR :) > With Respect To boot times, I would think moving to a specialised shell > that had no interactive capability (such as Gnu Readline) might be a > place to start. That the "shell" often had to invoke subshells to do > things, to me might be a reason to try Perl to boot a system. Just as > a trial, Perl is big. But once you get it up and running, it doesn't > need to invoke inferior processes for many tasks, and is capable of > starting binaries with calculated arguments. Execution speed is not the (only) issue, see above. > Do you have a reference on sysvinit maintainer having problems? I > don't anticipate having time for a couple of months, but maybe after. A good place to start would be the PTS http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sysvinit.html but maybe you should consider helping out with OpenRC instead? Not trying to tell you what to do, I just think OpenRC has a future (in general as well as in Debian). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 03/03/14 17:00, ghaverla wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:52:40 +1100 > Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> You *imagine*, not "think" (using reductive logic?). I'm sure your >> not a bully who forces your ideas onto those that do want fast boot >> instead of hibernation. > > Did you really need to send this? The entire note, not just this > snippet. > > Gord > > Are you psychic? Have you *any* evidence to support your "thoughts"? If your answer is no, then my answer is yes. And if 'my' opinion offends you then I'm genuinely sorry, but you've got the wrong end of the offense. Making assumptions as to the "needs" of others without any evidence or attempt to find any, is a bit arrogant and rude don't you think? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/531438cd.5000...@gmail.com
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Du, 02 mar 14, 17:18:39, ghaverla wrote: > This isn't properly replied to. I am new to Claws, and I have no time > to figure out gpg signing. Close enough (i.e. the attributions are right as far as I can tell) ;) > On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:56:22 +0200 > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > On Sb, 01 mar 14, 20:03:54, ghaverla wrote: > > > > > > But the fact there are no options is what bothers me. > > > > There are options. Even if Canonical will be pulling the plug on udev > > there is still OpenRC. The maintainer could use more help though. > > I looked in Debian a week or so ago. OpenRC wasn't even in > experimental. Either I looked wrong, or it has only recently been > added. I know OpenRC is at Gentoo (that where it came from, as I > understand things). According to the PTS it's been in experimental since 2014-01-03 and in sid (unstable) since 2014-02-28. http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/openrc.html > I don't understand Canonical pulling plug on udev. Pulling plug on > upstart makes sense, pulling plug on systemd makes sense. Sorry for that, meant upstart, wrote udev :( Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:52:40 +1100 Scott Ferguson wrote: > You *imagine*, not "think" (using reductive logic?). I'm sure your > not a bully who forces your ideas onto those that do want fast boot > instead of hibernation. Did you really need to send this? The entire note, not just this snippet. Gord -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302230029.3e560c2d@newmain.materia
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 3/2/2014 20:21, LOwens wrote: > > As I understand things, one of the benefits of systemd is a fast boot > process. As I only boot my computer once per year (or so), this is terribly > important to me (sarcasm). My computer spends a lot of time doing BOINC. > > As I understand things, to speed up the boot process, all the script files > get replaced with binary stuff. If there is a problem, you're hooped as you > can't edit some text file to fix things. Along with this goes a more > complicated PID=1. > > The guys at Bell Labs were all smart guys. Text files and simple PID=1 make > a lot of sense. There are lots of people who like the idea of fast boot > times. I think most of these people are looking for hibernation, not boot. sysvinit's script get replaced with unit files [0]. An example from my Arch Linux ARM system: [root@lasciel system]# cat multi-user.target.wants/ntpd.service [Unit] Description=Network Time Service After=network.target nss-lookup.target [Service] Type=forking PrivateTmp=true PIDFile=/run/ntpd.pid ExecStart=/usr/bin/ntpd -g -u ntp:ntp -p /run/ntpd.pid Restart=always [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target Very much a text file. [0] - http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.unit.html -- staticsafe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5313e388.9000...@staticsafe.ca
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 03/03/14 11:31, ghaverla wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 16:53:59 +1100 > Scott Ferguson wrote: > >>> I disagree with the binaryness of >>> systemd. >> >> Do you mean the *one* binary in systemd? I'm pretty sure the source >> is available. > > As I understand things, one of the benefits of systemd is a fast boot > process. As I only boot my computer once per year (or so), this is > terribly important to me (sarcasm). Which is fine for you, and I can understand and appreciate that, for my own personal computers my sentiments are similar. However my business purposes involve meeting SLAs so reboots once or twice a year can cost a lot of money - so in those circumstances a few minutes makes a lot of difference. Perhaps that's not something you care about - or it's just convenient to ignore until your bank/phone/stockbroker/shopping is interrupted as a result. Perhaps you simply put your "needs" before those of others - assuredly inadvertently. Given the interest displayed by "home users", and those that develop for embedded platforms, in fast boot times, I suspect your needs aren't stereotypical of all the users that Debian The Universal Operating System seeks to support. > > As I understand things, I don't know what you have or haven't been reading - but it's likely not the same as me. The journaling component is binary. The source is available. > > The guys at Bell Labs were all smart guys. Yes. So were many of the Ancient Greek engineers - but none of them were able to predict either the technological or social and business requirements of today. They were smart - and they knew their limitations, hence you won't find them having made foolish predictions like the guy who declared "everything that can be invented already has been". I suspect when you were reading up on Unix development you skipped the history and aims of Multix. You do know the joke behind the naming of Unix right? Multix was meant to be able to do "everything" - but budget and time constraints led to *severe* compromises in the project aims. Unix is the result. Linux (and GNU) are not Unix, by design - not just for legal reasons - but because it doesn't scratch the itch. Compare pears with pears, not potatoes. > I think most of these people are looking for > hibernation, not boot. You *imagine*, not "think" (using reductive logic?). I'm sure your not a bully who forces your ideas onto those that do want fast boot instead of hibernation. Fast booting was not the sole criteria for which it was selected by Debian for the *Linux* kernel. Perhaps your 'understanding' was not based on reading the relevant documentation, discussions and debates? If you're uncertain as to why "users" (sometimes erroneously interpreted to mean *only* hobbyist consumers) don't have more "say" in the process the Debian Constitution is a good starting point on the road to a "knowledge-based understanding". I'm reasonably certain that directly or indirectly (corporate sponsored), developers do take "users" needs into account - and those concerns shape the decisions they make in Debian debates and discussions. Please excuse the terseness of my language - my time and writing skill is limited. I do appreciate you are not a shill/troll/saboteur - but your post is one of many the read like "Dear interweb, do my home work for me". > > >>> But knowing Debian was going to change, I went looking for refuge, >>> and things derived from Gentoo might be home, things derived from >>> Slackware might be home. >> >> Choice is good. Fortunately it's one of the key benefits of Open >> Source development. > > There is no choice, when we are informed that systemd will be the > default in 8.0, when in unstable and testing systemd is already present > and seemingly no way to remove it. Wait - didn't you just say you went looking and found Gentoo and Slackware? Is that not choice? Don't conflate Debian and "Open Source" - they are not synonyms. If you interpret choice to mean "I demand my choice be catered for" - then bully for you. The only thing stopping you from writing your own init/kernel/userland from scratch - or forking the work of others, is the misplaced belief that others *should* do it for you. That sounds as productive and fulfilling as pissing up a rope. I'm sorry you find the whole idea so upsetting. Truly. Overcome and adapt is the only suggestion I can make. Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5313e068.5000...@gmail.com
RE: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
-Original Message- From: ghaverla [mailto:ghave...@materialisations.com] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 4:31 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 16:53:59 +1100 Scott Ferguson wrote: > > I disagree with the binaryness of > > systemd. > > Do you mean the *one* binary in systemd? I'm pretty sure the source > is available. As I understand things, one of the benefits of systemd is a fast boot process. As I only boot my computer once per year (or so), this is terribly important to me (sarcasm). My computer spends a lot of time doing BOINC. As I understand things, to speed up the boot process, all the script files get replaced with binary stuff. If there is a problem, you're hooped as you can't edit some text file to fix things. Along with this goes a more complicated PID=1. The guys at Bell Labs were all smart guys. Text files and simple PID=1 make a lot of sense. There are lots of people who like the idea of fast boot times. I think most of these people are looking for hibernation, not boot. > > But knowing Debian was going to change, I went looking for refuge, > > and things derived from Gentoo might be home, things derived from > > Slackware might be home. > > Choice is good. Fortunately it's one of the key benefits of Open > Source development. There is no choice, when we are informed that systemd will be the default in 8.0, when in unstable and testing systemd is already present and seemingly no way to remove it. Or rather there is a choice: your way or the highway. And my decision, was highway. Maybe things were presented wrong. Maybe things were not presented when they should have been. I have autism, and tend to take everything at face value. As I seen things, there was no choice. As things progress, I still see no choice, except the highway. Gord Remember when Thompson et al did the UNIX at BTL the computers were VERY slow (and VERY slow to boot) and also required boot relatively regularly. Larry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302173102.611b7c4c@newmain.materia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/002f01cf367e$f8db3b10$ea91b130$@netptc.net
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 13:05:20 -0600 y...@marupa.net wrote: > Sure, systemd has its flaws (While I like the journal, there are > downsides to a binary-based log when your system is screwed up and > your only resource is a LiveCD. I don't know if there's a way to read > the journal outside the system that created it.), but ultimately > between our choices: Stick with SysV, Upstart (Which takes an > everything and the kitchen sink approach to its dependency startups > and encourages complexity.), and OpenRC (Which utterly misses the > reasons why SysV needs replacing.), I'd choose systemd. My inclination is to edit out even more, but perhaps too much context gets hit. I've been playing UN*X since 1984. Init files are what they are. They get executed once at boot, and seldom seen again. I've seen different variations, including having everything in rc.local. I want to do number crunching, I don't want to be bothered by the boot process. It works. If I have to go make coffee while the boot process is happening, I'll go make coffee. In reading about UN*X since 1984, I have never seen mention of problems with the boot process, niggles yes. But things that cause the entire system to be classified as unusable, no. This kind of talk (writing) in my experience, is just in the last maybe 2 months. Systemd seems to have 2 proponents, people interested in fast booting, and people interested in servers. The intersection of those two groups is almost the NULL set. I think the answer to faster booting is hibernation, and people have been playing with that for many years as near as I can tell. To the people running servers who want faster booting, I would suggest that they not turn the things off. It isn't change is evil, the saying is if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Up until a month or so ago, I wouldn't know Lennart from a hole in the ground. He has a history with projects. Someone suggested he may not have started Pulse, I don't know. As far as I know, there are still problems with Pulse. I will not install Pulse on any system I set up, and if someone wants me to take care of their Linux box, Pulse gets removed. He may not have started Avahi, I don't know. I disable avahi daemons and executables as a matter of course, for much more than 1 year. My beef with Avahi? For my LAN, I have 0 need. Why is it required? Chmod 640 and the problem is more or less gone. But I still have the useless downloads, which cuts into my bandwidth and possibly monthly allowance. I don't want to download stuff I don't want or need. I have no idea if "avahi" is finished? I read the Free Software/FOSS/Libre news a lot. And I have more than a decade. I didn't see news that init scripts are broken. With Respect To boot times, I would think moving to a specialised shell that had no interactive capability (such as Gnu Readline) might be a place to start. That the "shell" often had to invoke subshells to do things, to me might be a reason to try Perl to boot a system. Just as a trial, Perl is big. But once you get it up and running, it doesn't need to invoke inferior processes for many tasks, and is capable of starting binaries with calculated arguments. Do you have a reference on sysvinit maintainer having problems? I don't anticipate having time for a couple of months, but maybe after. Gord -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302180946.7bcad2ab@newmain.materia
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
This isn't properly replied to. I am new to Claws, and I have no time to figure out gpg signing. On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:56:22 +0200 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 01 mar 14, 20:03:54, ghaverla wrote: > > > > But the fact there are no options is what bothers me. > > There are options. Even if Canonical will be pulling the plug on udev > there is still OpenRC. The maintainer could use more help though. I looked in Debian a week or so ago. OpenRC wasn't even in experimental. Either I looked wrong, or it has only recently been added. I know OpenRC is at Gentoo (that where it came from, as I understand things). I don't understand Canonical pulling plug on udev. Pulling plug on upstart makes sense, pulling plug on systemd makes sense. Gord -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302171839.4f667adb@newmain.materia
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 16:53:59 +1100 Scott Ferguson wrote: > > I disagree with the binaryness of > > systemd. > > Do you mean the *one* binary in systemd? I'm pretty sure the source > is available. As I understand things, one of the benefits of systemd is a fast boot process. As I only boot my computer once per year (or so), this is terribly important to me (sarcasm). My computer spends a lot of time doing BOINC. As I understand things, to speed up the boot process, all the script files get replaced with binary stuff. If there is a problem, you're hooped as you can't edit some text file to fix things. Along with this goes a more complicated PID=1. The guys at Bell Labs were all smart guys. Text files and simple PID=1 make a lot of sense. There are lots of people who like the idea of fast boot times. I think most of these people are looking for hibernation, not boot. > > But knowing Debian was going to change, I went looking for refuge, > > and things derived from Gentoo might be home, things derived from > > Slackware might be home. > > Choice is good. Fortunately it's one of the key benefits of Open > Source development. There is no choice, when we are informed that systemd will be the default in 8.0, when in unstable and testing systemd is already present and seemingly no way to remove it. Or rather there is a choice: your way or the highway. And my decision, was highway. Maybe things were presented wrong. Maybe things were not presented when they should have been. I have autism, and tend to take everything at face value. As I seen things, there was no choice. As things progress, I still see no choice, except the highway. Gord -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302173102.611b7c4c@newmain.materia
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 03/03/14 05:28, Doug wrote: > On 03/02/2014 02:02 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> On 02/03/14 16:53, y...@marupa.net wrote: >>> On Sunday, March 02, 2014 04:25:13 PM Scott Ferguson wrote: On 02/03/14 11:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> >>> In a few more years I imagine most people opposed to systemd won't >>> have a problem with it being there after all after using it for a bit. >> I'd be very surprised if it wasn't modified to suit the needs of the >> majority of developers - and they tend have the same itches as the >> "users", just slightly less conservative about their "needs". But I'm >> not a futurist. >> Though I did try voting conservative for a change - not surprisingly I >> was disappointed ;p >> >> > Has it occurred to anyone that the devs keep making changes to things > that work perfectly well, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have > anything > to do, and might be out of a job? > > --doug > > In two decades of using "Linux" (building, deploying, supporting), mostly Debian, *no*. And that's a "considered" opinion based on a fair "understanding" of what's involved. udev and UUID are good examples. But you're free to ride a donkey and run kernel_0.1 on steam power if you want. Just as those without the experience or ability are free to conflate "thought" and "imagination" so they can "intuitively" "understand" what's involved in processes performed by people with lesser "powers" who had to spend years learning the processes. apropos of little. Conservatism - a faith (often associated with a gun fetish) held by those who believe King Cnut conspired with the tide, and a fear that all change is not inevitable, but the result of some sort of liberal/communist/socialist/academic/freeloader plot that invariably confirms their deeply held belief that "it's all about 'them' stealing what's mine". Not a path to happiness or peace. Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5313ad85.4000...@gmail.com
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 13:05 -0600, y...@marupa.net wrote: > While I like the journal, there are downsides to a > binary-based log when your system is screwed up and your only resource is a > LiveCD. I don't know if there's a way to read the journal outside the system > that created it. $ sudo systemd-nspawn -D /mnt/point # journalctl ;) Assumed the live CD isn't using systemd, then use chroot instead of systemd-nspawn. Btw. I dislike journalctl. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393797380.668.74.camel@archlinux
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sunday, March 02, 2014 01:28:57 PM Doug wrote: > On 03/02/2014 02:02 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > On 02/03/14 16:53, y...@marupa.net wrote: > >> On Sunday, March 02, 2014 04:25:13 PM Scott Ferguson wrote: > >>> On 02/03/14 11:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > Here's mine:- > > troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob > > > :D > > We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against > systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users > wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around > 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who > use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most > important > distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a > time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it > in 2014 is a little bit to late. > >>> > >>> Same with Debian based on what I read, the vote was fairly evenly split, > >>> which is why it went to the Technical Committee, who were also fairly > >>> evenly split. > >> > >> Which probably demonstrates why there's no hidden agenda going on > >> surrounding systemd and there were legitimate reasons why it was finally > >> chosen.>> > >>> My concern is that it's a divisive issue that would be tempting for > >>> third parties to exacerbate and exploit. Commercial software vendors, > >>> and the companies that do their "marketing" and "public relation" might > >>> want to take advantage of the situation to reduce the market share they > >>> lose to Debian (and Linux as a whole). It wouldn't be that far from the > >>> sort of dirty tactics they've employed in the past. > >> > >> Definitely reasonable concerns, though to be honest, Linux's detractors > >> would have looked for something else to latch onto if systemd wasn't > >> divisive enough. > > > > As well as? > > > >> In a few more years I imagine most people opposed to systemd won't > >> have a problem with it being there after all after using it for a bit. > > > > I'd be very surprised if it wasn't modified to suit the needs of the > > majority of developers - and they tend have the same itches as the > > "users", just slightly less conservative about their "needs". But I'm > > not a futurist. > > Though I did try voting conservative for a change - not surprisingly I > > was disappointed ;p > > Has it occurred to anyone that the devs keep making changes to things > that work perfectly well, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have > anything > to do, and might be out of a job? > > --doug Well, while I wouldn't rule out change for change's sake, I do personally believe this was an actual needed change, between how inefficient and problematic initscripts can be to how badly Linux needs an actual system manager capable of unifying configuration, device management, and service control... Not to mention sysvinit has even been stated by it own upstream maintainer that it's become a trouble to upkeep. Sure, systemd has its flaws (While I like the journal, there are downsides to a binary-based log when your system is screwed up and your only resource is a LiveCD. I don't know if there's a way to read the journal outside the system that created it.), but ultimately between our choices: Stick with SysV, Upstart (Which takes an everything and the kitchen sink approach to its dependency startups and encourages complexity.), and OpenRC (Which utterly misses the reasons why SysV needs replacing.), I'd choose systemd. The only arguments I've seen against systemd, at least in this thread is either "it's change, and change is evil" and "Red Hat/Lennart did it, so it must be bad." I think a lot of the resistance seems grounded in an irrational hatred of corporate involvement in Linux. IT's VERY irrational given that a huge portion, if not most of, the kernel itself is corporate code from companies like Red Hat, IBM, Intel, Motorola, Google, HP, and even Microsoft... A significant portion of the drivers in the kernel tree are, themselves, provided by the company that made the hardware in the first place. Drivers for Intel GPUs on Linux ARE the official Intel-provided driver and are part of the tree. Strip away all corporate contributions and support and Linux really IS a hobby OS no one can use for anything. Conrad -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2195697.RESnpIPavN@twilight
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:27:59 -0500 "Steve Litt of Troubleshooters.Com" wrote: > On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:26:25 -0700 > ghaverla wrote: > > > > I will try Sabyon (sp?). But it looks like it might move to systemd > > willingly leaving no option. It is based on Gentoo, which I could > > move to. > > I tested Sabayon during my last "distro shootout", and it's *a lot* > different than Debian, especially Debian Stable. Sabayon is a rolling > distro, which can be convenient, but means broken code could sneak > onto your computer at any time. This is also true of things like > Ubuntu, but it's not true of Debian Stable unless a security update > is bad. > > Sabayon isn't all that easy to install. If I remember correctly, I was > forced to configure the kernel myself at install time (I might be > confusing it with Gentoo, this shootout was about 3 years ago). I got > the kernel wrong, and had to boot from System Rescue CD. Anyway, > Sabayon was difficult to install, and felt rather fragile to me. > > I have no knowledge of init systems and couldn't possibly comment on > systemd vs udev vs SysV, so I don't understand what's so terrible > about systemd. But my research from 3 years ago tell me that > Sabayon's no panacea. > > I just started using Debian (Wheezy) on a regular basis, and like its > solid ease. Systemd would need to be awfully bad for me to give that > up. Hi Steve. We both moved to Claws from kmail at about the same time. Most of the programming I have done is numerical methods, but for years on Debian I was compiling my own kernel. I am trying to start a big project at Savannah involving a bunch of number crunching, when this came up. But I have done a bunch of systems stuff, running Sabyon, Gentoo or Slackware shouldn't be a problem. I maintained a token ring driver for a few kernel revisions past where upstream quit, cross compiled gcc on Linux for Solaris, ported Perl-4.x to QNX-2.x. Gord -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302113108.61eaf0a7@newmain.materia
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Du, 02 mar 14, 13:28:57, Doug wrote: > On 03/02/2014 02:02 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >On 02/03/14 16:53, y...@marupa.net wrote: > >>In a few more years I imagine most people opposed to systemd won't > >>have a problem with it being there after all after using it for a bit. > >I'd be very surprised if it wasn't modified to suit the needs of the > >majority of developers - and they tend have the same itches as the > >"users", just slightly less conservative about their "needs". But I'm > >not a futurist. > >Though I did try voting conservative for a change - not surprisingly I > >was disappointed ;p > > > Has it occurred to anyone that the devs keep making changes to things > that work perfectly well, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have > anything to do, and might be out of a job? If this is supposed to be sarcasm it might be advisable to add corresponding tags or so. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 03/02/2014 02:02 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 02/03/14 16:53, y...@marupa.net wrote: On Sunday, March 02, 2014 04:25:13 PM Scott Ferguson wrote: On 02/03/14 11:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote: On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: Here's mine:- troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob :D We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it in 2014 is a little bit to late. Same with Debian based on what I read, the vote was fairly evenly split, which is why it went to the Technical Committee, who were also fairly evenly split. Which probably demonstrates why there's no hidden agenda going on surrounding systemd and there were legitimate reasons why it was finally chosen. My concern is that it's a divisive issue that would be tempting for third parties to exacerbate and exploit. Commercial software vendors, and the companies that do their "marketing" and "public relation" might want to take advantage of the situation to reduce the market share they lose to Debian (and Linux as a whole). It wouldn't be that far from the sort of dirty tactics they've employed in the past. Definitely reasonable concerns, though to be honest, Linux's detractors would have looked for something else to latch onto if systemd wasn't divisive enough. As well as? In a few more years I imagine most people opposed to systemd won't have a problem with it being there after all after using it for a bit. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't modified to suit the needs of the majority of developers - and they tend have the same itches as the "users", just slightly less conservative about their "needs". But I'm not a futurist. Though I did try voting conservative for a change - not surprisingly I was disappointed ;p Has it occurred to anyone that the devs keep making changes to things that work perfectly well, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have anything to do, and might be out of a job? --doug -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53137869.3030...@optonline.net
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 11:27 -0500, Steve Litt of Troubleshooters.Com wrote: > If I remember correctly, I was forced to configure the kernel myself > at install time Simply download a default Debian .config and then build the Sabayon kernel, SICR :D. Regards, Ralf PS: Forwarded Message From: Ralf Mardorf To: d-community-offto...@lists.alioth.debian.org Cc: debian-user Subject: Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 15:41:25 +0100 Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 A discussion without a flame war about systemd would be nice, perhaps we could continue at http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic and stay a little bit reasonable. "One boat isn't enough for them. Two boats isn't enough for them. They must have all the boats." _Them_/_they_ are _we_, the community. I prefer SysVinit over systemd, but most people want systemd, it wasn't the USA who forced us to use it, we, the community decided to use it. Every user is free to become a trusted user/distro maintainer and to co-operate in such decisions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393779214.668.39.camel@archlinux
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:26:25 -0700 ghaverla wrote: > > I will try Sabyon (sp?). But it looks like it might move to systemd > willingly leaving no option. It is based on Gentoo, which I could > move to. Gord, I tested Sabayon during my last "distro shootout", and it's *a lot* different than Debian, especially Debian Stable. Sabayon is a rolling distro, which can be convenient, but means broken code could sneak onto your computer at any time. This is also true of things like Ubuntu, but it's not true of Debian Stable unless a security update is bad. Sabayon isn't all that easy to install. If I remember correctly, I was forced to configure the kernel myself at install time (I might be confusing it with Gentoo, this shootout was about 3 years ago). I got the kernel wrong, and had to boot from System Rescue CD. Anyway, Sabayon was difficult to install, and felt rather fragile to me. I have no knowledge of init systems and couldn't possibly comment on systemd vs udev vs SysV, so I don't understand what's so terrible about systemd. But my research from 3 years ago tell me that Sabayon's no panacea. I just started using Debian (Wheezy) on a regular basis, and like its solid ease. Systemd would need to be awfully bad for me to give that up. Thanks, SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302112759.5e50a80c@mydesk
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 02/03/14 23:21, disbandtechc...@tfwno.gf wrote: > Regular inits are under 10k lines of code inclusive. Um, are you kind of limiting your audience? The vast majority of the readers of this list are familiar with the internet. Have *you* heard of it? Did you consider they might check? You know - like compare apples with apples, logger *and* init with logger and init. > > Notice how the fknuts always try to change the tables. > "It's YOU who are the shill!" OMG you're so right (lol) Not that I want to keep you from your work. > And always it is the same argument: > supercomplex softwares running as root are great! That'd be superdoopercomplex (blakmagikalabristic) wouldn't it? > > When it's unaudited, In the land of lollipops and chocolate ponies, or the land of FUD. But not in Debian. Have you heard of Open Source? Many eyes...? Intelligent discussion? Hello? I guess not. :/ > > Here's an easy way for concurrent boot: > > command1 & command2 & command3; > othercommand1 & othercommand2 & othercommand3; > thirdsetofcommands1 & thirdsetofcommands2 & thirdsetofcommands3; Um, you do know pseudocode is not an actual, um, code. (and that ain't pseudocode as we know it) In actual code (you know - the clicketty clicketty thing the pointy heads do) that'd be just like, um, systemd[*1]. Which, if you'd done *any* research, you'd know I don't advocate - just have respect for the Debian Constitution, the end result of which is the Debian I use. [*1] or *systemv*, and probably a bunch of other init systems I'm not familiar with. > > > > (Nice gmail address scott, Yes. Scott is my name Mr? um, disbandtech. gmail is just a tool I use because I don't spam the list with my business. I guess hypocrisy is your strong point. Now you can go wash your hands. Mud sticks. As for *you* using the SOA mailing address to shill this list - I'm guessing you got a smack from your bosses for that. Just like the fool who was your predecessor when he stupidly posted from wonderland.mil. Maybe there's something to be said for the theory that morality and technical ability are inextricably linked... If you still have your job tomorrow it'll be with instructions to post from a throwaway email address - under strict supervision on a temporary contract. > who do they work with, oh yes, > the US government, Logical and irrefutable conclusion Sherlock, I am in awe of your insight - where do I sign up to your newsletter?. Did you really believe being intellectually challenged was a requirement for subscribing to this list? Or are you just blindly following a script? Seriously - I'm fascinated. Now I'm bored (apologies to others who were already beyond boredom). Kind regards (to the rest of the list). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Systemd is over 200,000 lines of ring0 running bullshit.Regular inits are under 10k lines of code inclusive.Some are 100 lines of code.Hmm which is easier to find exploits in.SystemD.Notice how the fknuts always try to change the tables."It's YOU who are the shill!"And always it is the same argument:supercomplex softwares running as root are great!When it's unaudited, even better!(If we can't corrupt the kernel, build a newless looked at "critical" piece of softwareunderneath!)If there are shills, it's the systemd fans,Notice the tone of their arguments are always the sameit's almost as if... they are the same personor the same people are writing their "arguments"(Which all mostly amount to simple proselytizingor appeal to authority once they get their footin the door)Here's an easy way for concurrent boot:command1 & command2 & command3;othercommand1 & othercommand2 & othercommand3;thirdsetofcommands1 & thirdsetofcommands2 & thirdsetofcommands3;You see what bullshit systemd is now?(Nice gmail address scott, who do they work with, oh yes,the US government, helping to enforce the US beliefsystem around the world, almost like it's a religion,and those who don't obey the US belief system,say those who don't join the economic or social foldsay by continuing to marry little girls and not allowing pipelines and trainlines through theirland, well they and their families get drone bombedin their houses. It's either the US way or deathor imprisonment. Everyone must obey.*)Notice how one or two or three linux distros aren't enoughfor the systemd people. They must have all eight of the main linux distros under their belt or control.One boat isn't enough for them. Two boats isn't enough for them.They must have all the boats.I wonder why. Easy: They want control. They want easy exploits.They get it through tricks and exploiting the processesof the distros. None of us got to vote on this(and even if we did, if they stuff the ballotswith 51 percent, then we have to "shut up"just like in American democracy. The 48 percent of the population that is made up of men has to shut up becausethe 52 percent of the population that is female said no marrying young girls, no mouthing off to womenat work, no sex when you want with your wive(s) (RAPE!),and yes, to mandatory forced schooling so this reigncontinues and continues forever)*(in response to my FG address)On 02/03/14 11:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote:> On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:>> Here's mine:->> troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob> > :D> > We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against> systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users> wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around> 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who> use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important> distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a> time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it> in 2014 is a little bit to late.> > Same with Debian based on what I read, the vote was fairly evenly split,which is why it went to the Technical Committee, who were also fairlyevenly split.My concern is that it's a divisive issue that would be tempting forthird parties to exacerbate and exploit. Commercial software vendors,and the companies that do their "marketing" and "public relation" mightwant to take advantage of the situation to reduce the market share theylose to Debian (and Linux as a whole). It wouldn't be that far from thesort of dirty tactics they've employed in the past.And then there's NSA (and the companies they outsource to) - they *do*have an agenda that would be furthered by creating divisions anduncertainty in Debian. They've made large investments in software hookedto the existing init system - and while they'll have to retool to usesystemd it doesn't mean they have the same access required to replaceexisting malware installations, additionally they would probably enjoyseeing less people use Debian.I'm not saying the OP is a shill/disinformation/agent provocateur - justbecause it looks like a duck, paddles like a duck, and has it's headhidden, doesn't mean it is a duck. Could be just a decoy.Even though the spooks do like the French Guinea TLD and get theirscripts from PsyOps... just a thought, probably paranoia on my part.Kind regards The Free Email with so much more!=> http://www.MuchoMail.com <=
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:32 +0100, Slavko wrote: > I personaly don't like the democratic system, where anybody > participate on the decisions Neither Debian, nor the distro we should not mention are democratic, but for both distros everybody is allowed to make decisions, when becoming a member of the team. And it's possible to stay informed for both distros and to talk about veto at the right time. All I was saying is, that if somebody has got a veto against systemd. this is around 3 years to late, for Debian and more than ever fotr the distro we should not mention. I just mentioned the distro we should not mention, because I've got experiences with a _real_ systemd, by using this distro and for this distro it started with such a hybrid Debian currently provides too. I've seen all the steps from SysVinti to the hybrid pseudo-systemd (similar to the one Debian does provide now) to the _real_ systemd. I'm using Debian with SysVinit and I don't fear the switch to the _real_ systemd. My intention is to encourage people to use systemd, not to stay away from it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393754516.596.204.camel@archlinux
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sb, 01 mar 14, 20:03:54, ghaverla wrote: > > But the fact there are no options is what bothers me. There are options. Even if Canonical will be pulling the plug on udev there is still OpenRC. The maintainer could use more help though. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
Ahoj, Dňa Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:44:00 +0100 Ralf Mardorf napísal: > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > Here's mine:- > > troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob > > :D > > We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against Ralph, i write this again to you: You, Arch users, please talk about Arch in Arch's MLs. Debian is not a full democratic organization (i am sorry, i don't know exact English terms for these things) - there are leaders, which are doing decisions. At some point there is needing for decisions, not matter, if users want they or not. You can disagree, you can make a protest, but it is all, that you can ;-) Of course, there is a freedom: you can try to go into leaders (and make better decisions in future), you can select another distro (and troll the Debian ML with your selection), or you can start the new one (there are plenty distros in the world, but only some are about 20 years old...) I personaly don't like the democratic system, where anybody participate on the decisions, because then the decisions are constituting by people, which don't know about it (don't understand the problem) too. I prefer system, where decision are made by people, which understand the problem in the depth, which have a lot of experiences and are able to see things from different point of view. Considering the aftereffects is needed too. I am working with AT computers from the DOS 3.3 time. Last (more than) 15 years i am doing it professionally, now i am administrator of the information system in one school. But my knowledge is not enough to say, that switching to the SystemD is good or not (IMO this will be known in near future). Then all what i can now is to believe, that the leaders know what they are doing. When i will lose this trust, then it will be time to go elsewhere (another/own distro). regards -- Slavko http://slavino.sk signature.asc Description: PGP signature
French Guinea / Guiana (was: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely)
Scott Ferguson a écrit : > > Even though the spooks do like the French Guinea TLD .gf is the ccTLD for French Guiana (Guyane française), a french department and region in South America. French Guinea was a french colony in West Africa until 1958, when Guinea became independent. Its ccTLD is .gn. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5312f849.4070...@plouf.fr.eu.org
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 02/03/14 16:53, y...@marupa.net wrote: > On Sunday, March 02, 2014 04:25:13 PM Scott Ferguson wrote: >> On 02/03/14 11:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >>> On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: Here's mine:- troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob >>> :D >>> >>> We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against >>> systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users >>> wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around >>> 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who >>> use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important >>> distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a >>> time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it >>> in 2014 is a little bit to late. >> >> Same with Debian based on what I read, the vote was fairly evenly split, >> which is why it went to the Technical Committee, who were also fairly >> evenly split. >> > > Which probably demonstrates why there's no hidden agenda going on surrounding > systemd and there were legitimate reasons why it was finally chosen. > >> My concern is that it's a divisive issue that would be tempting for >> third parties to exacerbate and exploit. Commercial software vendors, >> and the companies that do their "marketing" and "public relation" might >> want to take advantage of the situation to reduce the market share they >> lose to Debian (and Linux as a whole). It wouldn't be that far from the >> sort of dirty tactics they've employed in the past. > > Definitely reasonable concerns, though to be honest, Linux's detractors would > have looked for something else to latch onto if systemd wasn't divisive > enough. As well as? > In a few more years I imagine most people opposed to systemd won't > have a problem with it being there after all after using it for a bit. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't modified to suit the needs of the majority of developers - and they tend have the same itches as the "users", just slightly less conservative about their "needs". But I'm not a futurist. Though I did try voting conservative for a change - not surprisingly I was disappointed ;p > >> And then there's NSA (and the companies they outsource to) - they *do* >> have an agenda that would be furthered by creating divisions and >> uncertainty in Debian. They've made large investments in software hooked >> to the existing init system - and while they'll have to retool to use >> systemd it doesn't mean they have the same access required to replace >> existing malware installations, additionally they would probably enjoy >> seeing less people use Debian. >> > > The trouble is, how effectively can the NSA hook itself into open source > software? As effectively as possible, by all means possible? Do they recruit university students who show an aptitude for finding weaknesses in software? (the answer is yes). > How easily could they get backdoors into something without upstream > noticing? How long is a piece of string? ;) > Might be effective getting hooks into something downstream, but I > don't see the NSA getting anything into something upstream without someone > noticing, since patches are generally reviewed before integration. See history of C compilers. > > To sum up my *thought* on that, the NSA needs cooperation from someone > OUTSIDE > the NSA to get their hooks in. How likely is it a Debian package maintainer > would be compromised? How likely is it that MI5 could *have* compromised Serbians? The NSA asked Linus Torvalds, as a US citizen he'd go to jail if he admitted the request to backdoor the kernel (instead he said no when asked in an interview, while nodding "yes"). His father is not a US citizen and was more forth-coming. Does that mean that because Linux refused that others couldn't be convinced of the career benefits (or health and sanity risks of not complying)? Many eyes is good for a number of reasons - we're all human. > Would someone else notice? Would the maintainer be > removed? Things are patched all the time. While the Debian policy is to alway make flaws public it doesn't extend to investigating and/or publicizing the reasons, so I don't know the answer to that. > > I'm not saying it's implausible so much as it doesn't sound like it'd last > long if they could get something in. If you want an informed answer I'd suggest reading Bruce Schneier's blog, or the Guardian. > Could you perhaps give me some insight > into ways the NSA could do this? No - for a multitude of reasons, omnipotence being one of them. ;p > I just don't see most upstream people > cooperating. Can the NSA force anyone to actually put backdoors in their own > code? Huh? Are you serious or just don't follow current events? :) Levison and Lavabit, the Internet Archive, and many others "got a visit". And they're the ones who dared to say anyth
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sunday, March 02, 2014 07:21:28 PM Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:53:28PM -0600, y...@marupa.net wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > > And then there's NSA (and the companies they outsource to) - they *do* > > > have an agenda that would be furthered by creating divisions and > > > uncertainty in Debian. They've made large investments in software hooked > > > to the existing init system - and while they'll have to retool to use > > > systemd it doesn't mean they have the same access required to replace > > > existing malware installations, additionally they would probably enjoy > > > seeing less people use Debian. > > > > The trouble is, how effectively can the NSA hook itself into open source > > software? How easily could they get backdoors into something without > > upstream noticing? Might be effective getting hooks into something > > downstream, but I don't see the NSA getting anything into something > > upstream without someone noticing, since patches are generally reviewed > > before integration. > > > > To sum up my thought on that, the NSA needs cooperation from someone > > OUTSIDE the NSA to get their hooks in. > > What! You mean that they want someone to "act" like Edward Snowdon? Though I know you're making a joke, I'm really serious, I'm not certain how NSA spyware works in source code readily available to the public. Conrad -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3182814.TKkp6ehV4I@twilight
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:53:28PM -0600, y...@marupa.net wrote: > > > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > > And then there's NSA (and the companies they outsource to) - they *do* > > have an agenda that would be furthered by creating divisions and > > uncertainty in Debian. They've made large investments in software hooked > > to the existing init system - and while they'll have to retool to use > > systemd it doesn't mean they have the same access required to replace > > existing malware installations, additionally they would probably enjoy > > seeing less people use Debian. > > > > The trouble is, how effectively can the NSA hook itself into open source > software? How easily could they get backdoors into something without upstream > noticing? Might be effective getting hooks into something downstream, but I > don't see the NSA getting anything into something upstream without someone > noticing, since patches are generally reviewed before integration. > > To sum up my thought on that, the NSA needs cooperation from someone OUTSIDE > the NSA to get their hooks in. What! You mean that they want someone to "act" like Edward Snowdon? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140302062128.GA19372@tal
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sunday, March 02, 2014 04:25:13 PM Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 02/03/14 11:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> Here's mine:- > >> troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob > >> > > :D > > > > We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against > > systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users > > wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around > > 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who > > use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important > > distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a > > time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it > > in 2014 is a little bit to late. > > Same with Debian based on what I read, the vote was fairly evenly split, > which is why it went to the Technical Committee, who were also fairly > evenly split. > Which probably demonstrates why there's no hidden agenda going on surrounding systemd and there were legitimate reasons why it was finally chosen. > My concern is that it's a divisive issue that would be tempting for > third parties to exacerbate and exploit. Commercial software vendors, > and the companies that do their "marketing" and "public relation" might > want to take advantage of the situation to reduce the market share they > lose to Debian (and Linux as a whole). It wouldn't be that far from the > sort of dirty tactics they've employed in the past. Definitely reasonable concerns, though to be honest, Linux's detractors would have looked for something else to latch onto if systemd wasn't divisive enough. In a few more years I imagine most people opposed to systemd won't have a problem with it being there after all after using it for a bit. > And then there's NSA (and the companies they outsource to) - they *do* > have an agenda that would be furthered by creating divisions and > uncertainty in Debian. They've made large investments in software hooked > to the existing init system - and while they'll have to retool to use > systemd it doesn't mean they have the same access required to replace > existing malware installations, additionally they would probably enjoy > seeing less people use Debian. > The trouble is, how effectively can the NSA hook itself into open source software? How easily could they get backdoors into something without upstream noticing? Might be effective getting hooks into something downstream, but I don't see the NSA getting anything into something upstream without someone noticing, since patches are generally reviewed before integration. To sum up my thought on that, the NSA needs cooperation from someone OUTSIDE the NSA to get their hooks in. How likely is it a Debian package maintainer would be compromised? Would someone else notice? Would the maintainer be removed? I'm not saying it's implausible so much as it doesn't sound like it'd last long if they could get something in. Could you perhaps give me some insight into ways the NSA could do this? I just don't see most upstream people cooperating. Can the NSA force anyone to actually put backdoors in their own code? > I'm not saying the OP is a shill/disinformation/agent provocateur - just > because it looks like a duck, paddles like a duck, and has it's head > hidden, doesn't mean it is a duck. Could be just a decoy. > > Even though the spooks do like the French Guinea TLD and get their > scripts from PsyOps... just a thought, probably paranoia on my part. > > Kind regards Conrad -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5689487.fCBUTfHKWg@twilight
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 02/03/14 12:26, ghaverla wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:28:38 +0100 > Ralf Mardorf wrote: > >> We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against >> systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users >> wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around >> 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who >> use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most >> important distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of >> systemd a time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. >> To discuss it in 2014 is a little bit to late. > > Hence, I (not the person who started this thread) couldn't have engaged > in debate 3+ years ago either. If you were a Debian developer you would have been made aware of systemd. If you were a Debian developer you'd have been able to participate in a relevant debate. Debian users debating the issue is about as effective as us debating gravity - it might make us feel our opinions are validated but has no effect on reality. > I disagree with the binaryness of > systemd. Do you mean the *one* binary in systemd? I'm pretty sure the source is available. > > But knowing Debian was going to change, I went looking for refuge, and > things derived from Gentoo might be home, things derived from Slackware > might be home. Choice is good. Fortunately it's one of the key benefits of Open Source development. Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5312c777.3060...@gmail.com
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:11:24 +0100 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 18:26 -0700, ghaverla wrote: > > But to read that a split of 49:51 means there can't be options is > > disheartening. > > I was inaccurate, I guess there were much more than 51% pro > sytsmed ;). But indeed, systemd caused the longest flame wars on > several mailing lists I ever read + I participated to some of those > flame wars. The only flame wars I liked were the emacs/vi ones. I was using slackware before they turned the tarball into a package. I can go back to that if need be. I've used HP-UX, Solaris, QNX and other things UN*X or UN*Xlike. BSD would not be a problem. Plan 9 might be interesting. But the fact there are no options is what bothers me. But, I have a friend a couple of thousand km away, who has a partially borked system, and we are trying to talk him into getting things back up. So, I will come back to this later. Gord -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140301200354.626156da@newmain.materia
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 02/03/14 11:28, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Here's mine:- >> troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob > > :D > > We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against > systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users > wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around > 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who > use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important > distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a > time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it > in 2014 is a little bit to late. > > Same with Debian based on what I read, the vote was fairly evenly split, which is why it went to the Technical Committee, who were also fairly evenly split. My concern is that it's a divisive issue that would be tempting for third parties to exacerbate and exploit. Commercial software vendors, and the companies that do their "marketing" and "public relation" might want to take advantage of the situation to reduce the market share they lose to Debian (and Linux as a whole). It wouldn't be that far from the sort of dirty tactics they've employed in the past. And then there's NSA (and the companies they outsource to) - they *do* have an agenda that would be furthered by creating divisions and uncertainty in Debian. They've made large investments in software hooked to the existing init system - and while they'll have to retool to use systemd it doesn't mean they have the same access required to replace existing malware installations, additionally they would probably enjoy seeing less people use Debian. I'm not saying the OP is a shill/disinformation/agent provocateur - just because it looks like a duck, paddles like a duck, and has it's head hidden, doesn't mean it is a duck. Could be just a decoy. Even though the spooks do like the French Guinea TLD and get their scripts from PsyOps... just a thought, probably paranoia on my part. Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5312c0b9.1060...@gmail.com
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 18:26 -0700, ghaverla wrote: > But to read that a split of 49:51 means there can't be options is > disheartening. I was inaccurate, I guess there were much more than 51% pro sytsmed ;). But indeed, systemd caused the longest flame wars on several mailing lists I ever read + I participated to some of those flame wars. Regarding to the OT: Pulseaudio is something completely different. Pulseaudio makes live easier for averaged computer users and those of us who have special audio needs, have to tweak our machines. Getting rid of pulseaudio does cause less pain, than to do all the other tweaks. Lennart P. for sure is as known as Jesus Christ, Micky Mouse and Coca~Cola, but he seems not to be the person in charge. I dislike Micky Mouse, so when I want to read Donald Duck and the stories are interrupted by Micky Mouse crap, I simply ignore the Micky Mouse stories by changing pages until the Donald Duck stories continue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393726284.596.136.camel@archlinux
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:28:38 +0100 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against > systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users > wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around > 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who > use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most > important distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of > systemd a time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. > To discuss it in 2014 is a little bit to late. I don't begrudge DD deciding to make systemd the default in 8.0. But the announcement of that, was the first time systemd came on my radar. Hence, I (not the person who started this thread) couldn't have engaged in debate 3+ years ago either. I disagree with the binaryness of systemd. But knowing Debian was going to change, I went looking for refuge, and things derived from Gentoo might be home, things derived from Slackware might be home. In trying to investigate this weeks ago, it was not a measured argument I was observing. I started with Linux with the 1.2.13 kernel, and my first job was upgrading a Linux box running 1.2.9 with 1.2.13. I have run across a lot of news, email, blogs and projects since then. There are a handful of personalities I dislike, and there are a handful of projects I dislike. Usually, you can find a replacement. Sometimes you have to remove stuff. One of the first sets of projects I found myself removing if present, or staying away from was Pulse audio. Some people never had problems, I think they did fresh installs where Pulse was the default. If Pulse ever had a problem, it usually seemed to turn into a nightmare. Long before I heard of Avahi, I had read about zeroconf. Seemed like a neat idea. I had no use for it. Then I found avahi causing me grief on KDE, and then I find out it is zeroconf, and it is required (or close to it). So, I just got in the habit of removing execute permission on all the binaries. Up until a few weeks ago, I had no idea who was behind either Pulse or avahi. Udev has bothered me. And then comes the systemd announcement, and part of that is involved systemd taking over udev. About that time, I learn who is behind systemd, and that this is the same person who was behind Pulse and avahi. And since then, I seen a note that this same udev thing is going to get pushed into the kernel. Soon. I will try Sabyon (sp?). But it looks like it might move to systemd willingly leaving no option. It is based on Gentoo, which I could move to. And once upon a time I ran slackware, so I could move to that, which looks like it will have options. At least to some things. And most recently, I built a debian package from source with pbuilder, in an effort to learn about removing unwanted functionality (PolicyKit). It turns out I also had to remove dbus and fax support, but I don't need either of those for my printing needs. It is possible that there won't be problems with Debian (or other distributions), but I think there will be. So I am moving, it is just to be determined how far. But to read that a split of 49:51 means there can't be options is disheartening. Gord -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140301182625.7a28d9bd@newmain.materia
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sunday, March 02, 2014 01:34:20 AM Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > Here's mine:- > > troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob > : > :D > > We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against > systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users > wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around > 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who > use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important > distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a > time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it > in 2014 is a little bit to late. I'm a very happy Arch user. And I admit at first even I had a little resistance to the systemd idea because at that time I hadn't seen it really proven yet. I had found myself wary because I had been burned almost every time I used Pulse Audio. (I could go on for ages of why I think PA should die in a fire, but I'll spare you.) I've also had some negative experiences with Avahi I won't get into here. Then I finally did the systemd switch. Liked how fast it made things and how much easier it made perusing events that happened on my system through the journal and the fact it can tell me the states of all my units. It makes figuring out why did not run as expected. Then I did research into more of why the change was made and found it even nicer than the traditional BSD-style init Arch used previously, found it was trivial to look into unit files instead of having to decypher initscripts. I say kudos to the Arch devs for implementing systemd. And kudos to Debian for actually wading through all the non-technical fearmongering people have about systemd and actually sticking to the facts about systemd and why it's a better, if not best, choice for Linux right now. Conrad -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/11912912.Ax8Hmizaqh@twilight
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Here's mine:- > troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob :D We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it in 2014 is a little bit to late. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393721040.596.105.camel@archlinux
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Here's mine:- > troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob :D We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it in 2014 is a little bit to late. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393720460.596.98.camel@archlinux
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Here's mine:- > troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob :D We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it in 2014 is a little bit to late. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393720118.596.94.camel@archlinux
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 10:55 +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Here's mine:- > troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob :D We Arch users made a poll. Even if more users would have been against systemd, the developers would have switched to systemd, but most users wanted systemd. We, around 49% and me were against systemd, but around 51 % were pro systemd. Nowadays it makes live easier for all of us who use several different distros, when _all_ or at least the most important distros will switch to systemd. To discuss pros and cons of systemd a time machine is needed, to go back more than 3 years ago. To discuss it in 2014 is a little bit to late. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1393720189.596.95.camel@archlinux
Re: Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
On 02/03/14 08:09, disbandtechc...@tfwno.gf wrote: > FOUR people made a decision that would once have required > thousands of votes. FOUR votes overrideds the decision > debian took before the tech-ctte dictatorship to standardize > on system V init rather than bsd style init scripts > > The tech-ctte was created to arbitrate and decide disputes > between package maintainers. Which it seemingly did. > It was not created to decide > fundamental issues about the OS. Some members have used it > in bad faith to push through a decision > > This is a bad-faith acquisition of power here that has occurred. > The debian tech-ctte should be disbanded for that reason Quick! to the barricades - use *your* bodies to stop the bullets? I'm guessing disbandtechctte is not your real name. > > *The tech-ctte is stacked not with volunteer debian devs, but > by people on the payroll of redhat and canonical of ubuntu fame, > that's why there was a tie-vote, they voted their paycheques That's your interpretation of events, not to be confused with an accurate accessment of facts. > > Has their been a breach of the Debian Constitution? Anyway, that's your unsolicited opinion - which you no doubt deserve (to hold). Here's mine:- troll elsewhere - try rabbleRus.org or LetMeTellUWhat2Do.mob Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53127366.3080...@gmail.com
Four people decided the fate of debian with systemd. Bad faith likely
FOUR people made a decision that would once have required thousands of votes. FOUR votes overrideds the decision debian took before the tech-ctte dictatorship to standardize on system V init rather than bsd style init scripts The tech-ctte was created to arbitrate and decide disputes between package maintainers. It was not created to decide fundamental issues about the OS. Some members have used it in bad faith to push through a decision This is a bad-faith acquisition of power here that has occurred. The debian tech-ctte should be disbanded for that reason *The tech-ctte is stacked not with volunteer debian devs, but by people on the payroll of redhat and canonical of ubuntu fame, that's why there was a tie-vote, they voted their paycheques *The monetary situation with the tech-ctte members raises a strong presumption of self-dealing. *The way they voted party lines confirms it nearly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ed3dadcddd421ed3af38083a63fba...@tfwno.gf
