Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 22 October 2014 21:50, David L. Craig dlc@gmail.com wrote: There is only one way the default init for Jessie can be changed at this point in time--the Release Team must conclude systemd will have turned out to be a release critical nightmare likely well into the feature freeze. There is only one way for that to happen--lots of open RC bugs having systemd at their core must start piling up as the upstream developers are having problems solving the problems. So everyone should be trying their best to find the bugs to prove systemd is as good|bad as they claim it is. Nobody that cares about Debian wants Jessie to be released with undiscovered serious flaws. Let's use our keyboards to launch test cases in preference to soapbox rhetoric that likely proves nothing. Let's let the code speak for itself for a while. Hi! After a week of tests, I realized that `systemd-journal` is not ready for prime time. A lot of times, it consumes 100% of CPU, making the system almost unusable. Debian Jessie should not activate `systemd-journal` by default (for logging), even when with systemd = PID1. Best, Thiago -- 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/CAJSM8J2R0mXGJJx0=Uem+5n=uog3s82azrxxww92rigrgdm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On Sb, 01 nov 14, 17:21:29, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: After a week of tests, I realized that `systemd-journal` is not ready for prime time. A lot of times, it consumes 100% of CPU, making the system almost unusable. Debian Jessie should not activate `systemd-journal` by default (for logging), even when with systemd = PID1. Unreproducible. Could you please give more details about your setup? 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: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 01/11/14 19:21, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: After a week of tests, I realized that `systemd-journal` is not ready for prime time. A lot of times, it consumes 100% of CPU, making the system almost unusable. Debian Jessie should not activate `systemd-journal` by default (for logging), even when with systemd = PID1. Excellent. What's the reproducible method of causing this outcome, and which Debian (or upstream) bug number is associated with your findings? -- 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/545544a5.7030...@zen.co.uk
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 1 November 2014 18:12, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote: On Sb, 01 nov 14, 17:21:29, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: After a week of tests, I realized that `systemd-journal` is not ready for prime time. A lot of times, it consumes 100% of CPU, making the system almost unusable. Debian Jessie should not activate `systemd-journal` by default (for logging), even when with systemd = PID1. Unreproducible. Could you please give more details about your setup? Kind regards, Andrei Agree. I'l try to provide some guides to reproduce the problems... Sorry... -- 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/cajsm8j3xn9dk+3tb159k1qserrgpnj6zp2skby_p0t09a4r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On Vi, 24 oct 14, 14:24:31, Peter Nieman wrote: And there should be ethical considerations, e. g. to not expose the users by default to software that due to its complexity and technical characteristics might facilitate intrusion and spying. Dam'it, we must get rid of X. 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: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 25/10/14 12:36, Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Vi, 24 oct 14, 14:24:31, Peter Nieman wrote: And there should be ethical considerations, e. g. to not expose the users by default to software that due to its complexity and technical characteristics might facilitate intrusion and spying. Dam'it, we must get rid of X. 1. X isn't an init system, it's not running as PID 1 and is not essential on a Debian machine. 2. As far as I know, X developers never openly declared their intention to transform Linux into an entirely different OS and radically change the way every distribution works. 3. There's no alternative to X so far, but there are several alternatives to systemd, and one of them has worked perfectly well for most people until the present day. -- 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/m2gce6$79m$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 25/10/14 15:31, Peter Nieman wrote: 3. There's no alternative to X so far, but there are several alternatives to systemd, and one of them has worked perfectly well for most people until the present day. I would take the several alternatives as tending to indicate that perhaps sysvinit + sysvrc does not work perfectly well, but instead merely BALGE (By And Large Good Enough). -- 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/544bc3f8.50...@zen.co.uk
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
Martin Read wrote: On 25/10/14 15:31, Peter Nieman wrote: 3. There's no alternative to X so far, but there are several alternatives to systemd, and one of them has worked perfectly well for most people until the present day. I would take the several alternatives as tending to indicate that perhaps sysvinit + sysvrc does not work perfectly well, but instead merely BALGE (By And Large Good Enough). What's wrong with good enough? Seriously, nowhere, in all the discussions of systemd, have I seen a significant number of people - other than those directly or indirectly associated with systemd - stand up and say we really, really, need a new init system, nor have I seen any upstream developers, except those associated with GNOME, making strong statements about how something other than systemd is really necessary for their package. And I specifically haven't heard anything from the important server-side packages (databases, VM environments, mail servers, list managers, and so forth) other than, oh yeah, I guess we have to write systemd scripts. Admittedly, my focus is server-side only, and I don't follow every software projects in the world, and I could be wrong. But... has anybody systematically collected input regarding init system requirements and/or systemd vs. sysvinit, from either upstream developers or server sys admins? If so, please point to it. So far, all the push has come from proponents of systemd, and all the substantive discussion has been among the distro/package maintainer community. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- 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/544bcdf2.50...@meetinghouse.net
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 25/10/14 17:38, Martin Read wrote: I would take the several alternatives as tending to indicate that perhaps sysvinit + sysvrc does not work perfectly well, but instead merely BALGE (By And Large Good Enough). I really doubt that it indicates anything like that. There are more reasons why people start working on alternatives than just the perceived inadequacy of existing solutions. The world is full of programmers, you know, and every minute or so a new young programmer feels the urge to demonstrate to the world how great he is and starts reinventing the wheel. If you look at the history of software development you will find that the same pattern repeats itself over and over again. In the beginning, there is a need for something that doesn't exist yet. Then someone starts programming it. His solution will at first be buggy and lacking features. Then it will get better, and at some point it will do its job very well and to the entire satisfaction of the users. That's the point when programmers should stop working on that thing except for bug fixes and such. But that never happens. Instead they will start looking for more and more features to add, because the project has become an important part of their lives and their favourite passtime. And new programmers will appear and start changing things or restart from scratch, because they know better. And in the end you will always have one or more bloated and unstable monsters and disappointed users. I guess everyone here can name examples of that. p. -- 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/m2gps0$i2j$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
Peter Nieman wrote: On 25/10/14 17:38, Martin Read wrote: I would take the several alternatives as tending to indicate that perhaps sysvinit + sysvrc does not work perfectly well, but instead merely BALGE (By And Large Good Enough). I really doubt that it indicates anything like that. There are more reasons why people start working on alternatives than just the perceived inadequacy of existing solutions. The world is full of programmers, you know, and every minute or so a new young programmer feels the urge to demonstrate to the world how great he is and starts reinventing the wheel. If you look at the history of software development you will find that the same pattern repeats itself over and over again. In the beginning, there is a need for something that doesn't exist yet. Then someone starts programming it. His solution will at first be buggy and lacking features. Then it will get better, and at some point it will do its job very well and to the entire satisfaction of the users. That's the point when programmers should stop working on that thing except for bug fixes and such. But that never happens. Instead they will start looking for more and more features to add, because the project has become an important part of their lives and their favourite passtime. And new programmers will appear and start changing things or restart from scratch, because they know better. And in the end you will always have one or more bloated and unstable monsters and disappointed users. I guess everyone here can name examples of that. any sufficiently advanced program reinvents lisp poorly (also applies to concurrency and Erlng) :-) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- 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/544bf389.4050...@meetinghouse.net
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 23/10/14 22:10, David L. Craig wrote: On 14Oct23:2035+0300, Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis wrote: That's not the point. From the technical point of view, IMO, you are correct but that's not the only view that exists in Debian Project, me thinks. [snip] My choices reg. my use of technology isn't based only on technical grounds, you know. There are legal considerations pertaining to global software redistribution, of course. There are financial considerations beyond Debian's licensing and support fees, to be sure, but those and other categories of non-technical considerations are entirely outside of the Debian organization as I see it--they are user considerations. And there should be ethical considerations, e. g. to not expose the users by default to software that due to its complexity and technical characteristics might facilitate intrusion and spying. -- 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/m2dgie$sib$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
Dne Čt 23. října 2014 06:04:11 Charles Kroeger napsal(a): Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? Yes, it's possible one from possibilities of code speaking. I have the systemd and have one problem with it, starting kdm, if I need not kdm (this is my case), so I have been starting kde4 by startx (this is sufficient solution for me. I have runlevel 3.), the second solution of starting kdm is configuring systemd or the third solution of it is remove the systemd. This is a systematic way of code speaking, not trolling. -- Josef Leo Bureš --- „Teoretické znalosti dnes už nestačí. Člověk musí překročit jejich hranice a umění se stane neumělým uměním, které vyrústá z nevědomí“ Daitsu Suzuki ( 1870 – 1966 ) Prosím, neposílejte mi přílohy ve formátech .doc nebo .ppt (PowerPoint) Přečtěte si http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.cs.html - Čtete http://hoax.cz/ nebo http://viry.cz/ aneb vysvětlení pomalého internetu. --- http://www.root.cz/specialy/licence/ Feder ajsi romňi, so buter manušňi sar džuvli. Cigánské přísloví -- 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/201410230808.56191.leonardo...@gmail.com
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
Dne Čt 23. října 2014 06:04:11 Charles Kroeger napsal(a): Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? Yes, it's possible one from possibilities of code speaking. I have the systemd and have one problem with it, starting kdm, if I need not kdm (this is my case), so I have been starting kde4 by startx (this is sufficient solution for me. I have runlevel 3.), the second solution of starting kdm is configuring systemd or the third solution of it is remove the systemd. This is a systematic way of code speaking, not trolling. -- Josef Leo Bureš --- „Teoretické znalosti dnes už nestačí. Člověk musí překročit jejich hranice a umění se stane neumělým uměním, které vyrústá z nevědomí“ Daitsu Suzuki ( 1870 – 1966 ) Prosím, neposílejte mi přílohy ve formátech .doc nebo .ppt (PowerPoint) Přečtěte si http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.cs.html - Čtete http://hoax.cz/ nebo http://viry.cz/ aneb vysvětlení pomalého internetu. --- http://www.root.cz/specialy/licence/ Feder ajsi romňi, so buter manušňi sar džuvli. Cigánské přísloví -- Leonardo -- „Teoretické znalosti dnes už nestačí. Člověk musí překročit jejich hranice a umění se stane neumělým uměním, které vyrústá z nevědomí“ Daitsu Suzuki ( 1870 – 1966 ) - Feder ajsi romňi, so buter manušňi sar džuvli. Cikánské přísloví -- 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/201410230813.09266@matrix-leo.cz
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:04:11AM -0400, Charles Kroeger wrote: Systemd or something tried to put another firewall on my computer called Pyroman I think or something. Pyroman has absolutely no reverse dependencies, so even a very confused aptitude would not install it automatically. I'm afraid this is almost certainly PEBCAK. It's also a great example of the PR problem systemd has at the moment: being in the frame for all sorts of crimes it has nothing to do with. -- 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/20141023064642.gb20...@chew.redmars.org
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On Jo, 23 oct 14, 08:08:56, Josef Leo Bureš wrote: Dne Čt 23. října 2014 06:04:11 Charles Kroeger napsal(a): Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? Yes, it's possible one from possibilities of code speaking. I have the systemd and have one problem with it, starting kdm, if I need not kdm (this is my case), so I have been starting kde4 by startx (this is sufficient solution for me. I have runlevel 3.), the second solution of starting kdm is configuring systemd or the third solution of it is remove the systemd. This is a systematic way of code speaking, not trolling. update-rc.d kdm disable This will prevent kdm from starting whether you are using systemd or not. 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: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 23/10/14 17:08, Josef Leo Bureš wrote: Dne Čt 23. října 2014 06:04:11 Charles Kroeger napsal(a): Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? Yes, it's possible one from possibilities of code speaking. I have the systemd and have one problem with it, starting kdm, if I need not kdm (this is my case), so I have been starting kde4 by startx Does startkde not work for you? (instead of startx) (I note Andrei's suggestion later in this thread on disabling kdm) snipped 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/5448c904.8070...@gmail.com
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
Dne Čt 23. října 2014 11:23:51 Andrei POPESCU napsal(a): update-rc.d kdm disable I didn't know this command, but I know similar command sysv-rc-conf. Thank you. -- Josef Leo Bureš --- „Teoretické znalosti dnes už nestačí. Člověk musí překročit jejich hranice a umění se stane neumělým uměním, které vyrústá z nevědomí“ Daitsu Suzuki ( 1870 – 1966 ) Prosím, neposílejte mi přílohy ve formátech .doc nebo .ppt (PowerPoint) Přečtěte si http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.cs.html - Čtete http://hoax.cz/ nebo http://viry.cz/ aneb vysvětlení pomalého internetu. --- http://www.root.cz/specialy/licence/ Feder ajsi romňi, so buter manušňi sar džuvli. Cigánské přísloví -- 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/201410231229.48213.leonardo...@gmail.com
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 14Oct23:0004-0400, Charles Kroeger wrote: Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? The code speaks when its execution reveals a need to run reportbug (or not). When we fail to run reportbug, we muzzle the code and possibly allow that bug to be part of the Jessie release. Hopefully that is nobody's idea of a good approach. Also, hopefully everybody is aware anybody can run reportbug, which simply emails the bug report to the BTS--no registration is necessary and formatting the report is quite painless. If systemd is the disaster many believe it to be, its defects should be manifesting as we test systemd behavior in as many configurations as possible and it should not be trivial to remediate those arising from poor software design. If you want systemd to not be the default, you need to prove to the Release Team it is unworthy, and the only way to do that is to document the defects in the BTS. Is that sufficiently clear? -- not cent from sell May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! Dave_Craig__ So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. __--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
Στις 23-10-2014 18:29, David L. Craig έγραψε: On 14Oct23:0004-0400, Charles Kroeger wrote: Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? snip If you want systemd to not be the default, you need to prove to the Release Team it is unworthy, and the only way to do that is to document the defects in the BTS. Is that sufficiently clear? Well, yes and no. After 3 - 4 years of development, i trust the developers of systemd to produce, more or less, a sufficient's quality software. That's not the point. From the technical point of view, IMO, you are correct but that's not the only view that exists in Debian Project, me thinks. Again, IF it was only an init daemon/software/plumb ( you name it ), which anyone could ditch it painless ( meaning A - B AND B - A painless ... ), for whatever reason technical/personal preference/political, then by no means, make it default, make it a flag, make it a swiss army knife ( ? ) make it whatever suits the project. It pollutes my favorite OS's ecosystem, doesn't stay only with the init's role and I don't like it. My choices reg. my use of technology isn't based only on technical grounds, you know. Regards, -- Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis -- 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/9c4a23049585d9a511dc6f27febd4...@nephelae.eu
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On 14Oct23:2035+0300, Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis wrote: That's not the point. From the technical point of view, IMO, you are correct but that's not the only view that exists in Debian Project, me thinks. [snip] My choices reg. my use of technology isn't based only on technical grounds, you know. There are legal considerations pertaining to global software redistribution, of course. There are financial considerations beyond Debian's licensing and support fees, to be sure, but those and other categories of non-technical considerations are entirely outside of the Debian organization as I see it--they are user considerations. The Social Contract guides the Debian process but defining what is best for the users can be difficult because most users do not interact with the developers. It is clear from the TC ruling there was considerable concern the change of default init needed to be handled very carefully, a concern almost entirely based upon how the change can adversely affect existing users. Note the Debian team does not force anyone to use Debian but often expends effort to improve Debian from the point of view of some large percentage of the users with a lot of effort invested in providing a distribution that is useful to an unusually wide range of users. Multi-init support is an oft-stated and highly desirable goal for Jessie. Report any software behavior that hinders that as a bug at the earliest opportunity. That's the most likely way to effect the change you seek. -- not cent from sell May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! Dave_Craig__ So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. __--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
2014/10/24 0:45 David L. Craig dlc@gmail.com: On 14Oct23:0004-0400, Charles Kroeger wrote: Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? The code speaks when its execution reveals a need to run reportbug (or not). When we fail to run reportbug, we muzzle the code and possibly allow that bug to be part of the Jessie release. Hopefully that is nobody's idea of a good approach. Also, hopefully everybody is aware anybody can run reportbug, which simply emails the bug report to the BTS--no registration is necessary and formatting the report is quite painless. Please understand that I do not argue with this. If I could afford the hardware to replace my netbook that is no longer portable, or even if my tablet were not locked down and legally driver-hidden, I would be dual booting and probing for bugs in my spare time between classes and on the train. Not that I really have any spare time. If systemd is the disaster many believe it to be, its defects should be manifesting as we test systemd behavior in as many configurations as possible and it should not be trivial to remediate those arising from poor software design. This is the attitude that allowed MS-Windows to become a defacto standard, you know. (Please don't tell me I have to unpack that comment. And don't complain that it's innuendo. We are among engineers are we not?) If you want systemd to not be the default, you need to prove to the Release Team it is unworthy, and the only way to do that is to document the defects in the BTS. Is that sufficiently clear? What kind of a question is that? -- not cent from sell May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! Dave_Craig__ So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. Heh. __--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_ -- Joel Rees By the waters of Babylon ...
How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
There is only one way the default init for Jessie can be changed at this point in time--the Release Team must conclude systemd will have turned out to be a release critical nightmare likely well into the feature freeze. There is only one way for that to happen--lots of open RC bugs having systemd at their core must start piling up as the upstream developers are having problems solving the problems. So everyone should be trying their best to find the bugs to prove systemd is as good|bad as they claim it is. Nobody that cares about Debian wants Jessie to be released with undiscovered serious flaws. Let's use our keyboards to launch test cases in preference to soapbox rhetoric that likely proves nothing. Let's let the code speak for itself for a while. -- not cent from sell May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! Dave_Craig__ So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. __--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How To Prove Systemd Can|Cannot Be Jessie Default
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:10:01 +0200 David L. Craig dlc@gmail.com wrote: Let's use our keyboards to launch test cases in preference to soapbox rhetoric that likely proves nothing. Let's let the code speak for itself for a while. I've not had many problems with systemd excepting my firewall, Shorewall, failed to start when booting up. It still started with: 'shorewall start' on the command line so that was alright with me. Systemd or something tried to put another firewall on my computer called Pyroman but it could not start at the boot, and always generated an error message to this effect. It is quite inferior to shorewall anyway, so I removed it. The developer or maintainer of Shorewall has now succeeded in returning Shorewall to the old configuration. After booting up the other day I ran 'shorewall start' and the message came back: shorewall was already running. Is that your idea of letting the code speak for itself? -- CK System Information GTK+ 2.24.25 / GLib 2.42.0 Locale: en_US.UTF-8 (charset: UTF-8) Operating System: Linux 3.10-1-amd64 (x86_64) -- 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/card1rf8q2...@mid.individual.net
