Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 02/12/14 00:52, lee wrote: snipped WoW Whatever ... You should have snipped your own posts to begin with. Anyway, you didn't contribute anthing to what the OP said, and I don't find this part of the discussion worthwhile at all. Then why are you persisting with it? -- Tony van der Hoff | mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org Ariège, France | -- 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/547dac72.7080...@vanderhoff.org
Re: XDG Standard is not evil (was: Re: Why focus on systemd?)
Le 28.11.2014 15:32, Rusi Mody a écrit : However there are some issues: if the software-versions in these dont match up then its precisely these XDG files that tread on each others' toes across OSes. Well... if configuration files are not both upward and downward compatible between different versions, which could be both major, minor, Ubuntuesque or googlesque (yes, I do think that Ubuntu and chrome/firefox version schemes are stupid) I do not see where is the problem. After all, why, in the first time, do you need on the same computer different versions of the same software, if not for testing/development purposes? And in those purposes, you probably know how to change the default directory, right? On correct softwares, there is a command-line option for that, like -c, --config, or sometimes -C. No issue for me here but... One solution that Ive been toying with is as follows: 1. Have one real My-home partition 2. Keep /home as part of the OS-file system, so that each OS can mess around with its own 'XDG's' I wonder if people have tried this (or something similar) and any downsides Here, you know, you could be smarter. XDG directories are defined by environment variables. So, why not using, for example, in you .profile, something like this: $cat ~/.profile #!/bin/sh case $( grep PRETTY_NAME /etc/os-release |cut -f2 -d'' ) in Debian GNU/Linux jessie/sid) XDG_FOOBAR_STUFF=~/.config/jessie *) echo hey, I have no idea what distro this is? esac But, of course, it won't work with, for example, vim, bash, and plenty of softwares which... DO NOT respect XDG things. Oh, and I used /etc/os-release, which is not always present because... it's a part of XDG, AFAIK. But, you can do this by grepping/sedding in some mount on labels or whatever trick you want to identify the system on which you actually are. This is clean, and efficient. Far better that what you could achieve *without* XDG. Yes, I like xdg, between other reasons because it does not impose things: good softwares (for example, i3) allows the user to choose, if he want or not to use XDG. -- 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/457101a6a693f20b243e931a9d3ed...@neutralite.org
Re: XDG Standard is not evil (was: Re: Why focus on systemd?)
Le 27.11.2014 03:04, Serge a écrit : Later some people started to abuse those directories and put there files, that never supposed to be there. Those people don't really think about standards or unification. Usually they just enable displaying hidden files in their file manager, see a lot of dotfiles in a home directory and think that this is wrong. They start searching how to fix this, find xdg basedir-spec, and use it as an excuse for moving ~/.appname files, to ~/.config/appname, or worse, split them among .config, .local, .cache... If only rogues can put their configuration files in a subdirectory of a common directory, then every application is a rogue, since all applications put their configuration files in the $HOME directory or any of it's subdirectories. The point is that, applications using $HOME instead of $XDG_CONFIG_HOME does not only put their configuration there, but all their files. So, thanks to those ones, you will have things like: .bashrc, .bash_history, .dmenu_cache, .prxAEIHar (try to guess what's this file? I myself have no idea... reading it, it seems it's related to xosview?) etc. Ok, now, you only want to save your configuration files. Which ones will you take? Or, for a reason you want to use an application which is not installed on your system, but in a remote file system that you can't access everytime. If this application puts everything in $HOME, then you'll have useless things on your local machine, but if it uses XDG directories, you can mount/bind/whatever the distant directory to a point in $XDG_CONFIG_HOME. Another nice thing: Imagine I use several softwares which are not pieces of an existing monolithic DE. Imagine I would like to write an application to manage configuration of those applications I am using. I will probably have to use the strategy design pattern[1] because configuration formats will differ (key=value in INI-style way, xml-erk-style format...) and have plug-ins to manage those formats, but there are quite common ways, easy to parse, like good ol' INI (like gftp, but you'll probably find many others lying around on your own computer), or ugly (my opinion) XML. Ok, so, we sometimes have common formats, which might be used by several applications I use. So, maybe we could find some which shares common features? Like, for example, binding a shorcut to open a file (pretty common, right?) or move your character in an FPS game? For this, I could ask my plug-ins to extract, in all configuration files of $XDG_CONFIG_HOME, everything which looks like being able to open a file (some regexes on the key's name should do the work in many cases), and refer the folder's name which contains the files to identify which software uses it. Then, I could ask the user if he want to define a new shortcut for some specified set of applications (or to all? Why not?). Ok, then, now, the user can have a way to configure everything on his computer, without those applications having been written to be integrate in any DE. Of course, DEs can use it too, but, I made the choice to not use such things, because I think that there is too much bloat. This would be harder, by far, if every application just puts things, sometimes in $HOME/.application, or $HOME/.application.conf, or $HOME/.application/config or $HOME/.application/application.config (not to speak about those nasty rc files!). Last but not least, it means that one could write a library to manage configuration files, which could be reused, because things goes in some predefined places, in a predefined order. No need to learn that .bash_profile is read before .profile... oh, sorry, bash does not uses XDG dirs. So, I can see advantages. Several ones. I'll try to find the problems now: the application have to be made correctly enough to not trust the content of an environment variable, because it may try to trick the software, for buffer overflows, code injections, or less dangerous things like behavior changing depending on the moment, if the application re-read the environment variable. That's all I can find. They don't think about /etc/xdg, they don't read FHS or other XDG standards, Well... honestly, I would not follow FHS blindlessly, obviously. Because, well... it does not works on Microsoft Windows, first, which is a widely used system, and I prefer to make things portable (so I would use a different mechanism on windows than on Debian to read default configuration files) plus, FHS is not followed in the same way everywhere: in *BSD, I think the softwares you will install through the package manager will not go into /usr/bin, but in /usr/local/bin. On some linux distro, it may go in /opt. How could I know? Even UNIX-style OSes disagree! About other XDG standards, well... I do not have to use dbus stuff to know what directory I should use to store my specific user's configuration, right? they don't care about people who have to do 2-4 times more
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes: On 29 November 2014 at 07:05, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes: snipped On 22/11/14 20:50, lee wrote: Didier, you have *totally* missed the OPs point. BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover Hyperbole much? ? the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device What you consider exaggerated and what not is your opinion. what has been the outcome of the GR to support multiple init systems? It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Huh? Does that mean that the users are left to deal themselves with the problems that could arise from this? Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time something is related to the freedesktop stuff, Freedesktop just provides hosting. Substitute Sourceforge for Freedesktop and see how well your theory flies. freedesktop.org is open source / open discussion software projects working on interoperability and shared technology for X Window System desktops. The most famous X desktops are GNOME and KDE, but developers working on any Linux/UNIX GUI technology are welcome to participate.[1] How does that demonstrate that the systemd project is not hosted by freedesktop.org? Why would that be relevant? Did your lips get sore or did you not quote the very next paragraph for other reasons? ? quote Software freedesktop.org hosts any on-topic software projects/quote [1]: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/ it's not understandable at all because the documentation utterly sucks or doesn't even exist. It's an entirely dead end. Do we really need or want that? If we need it, what for? If we want it, wouldn't we be much better off using Windows? Please replace we with I - it gives the misleading impression you speak for the vast majority when you only speak for yourself. Please learn to read and to understand what you're reading, and you may find that I was asking questions. You could learn a lot about yourself by eating your own dog food. To draw a map for you, try replacing we with users. Save your crayons. I'm a Debian user. I wouldn't be better off using Windows. You speak only for your self, not everybody (or even a significant majority) and it would be presumptuous to believe otherwise don't you think? Then why are you so persistently trying to say that I would be speaking for anyone? Note that opposition to *the choice* of using systemd 'probably' constitutes less than 1% of users. Noise, repetition, and FUD doesn't:- ;increase that percentage ;give you credibility ;justify your bullying and works against those that have genuine problems with systemd. And why do you mention this here? To provide constructive advice on how to get along with a *community*. Not in the expectation that everyone cares. Community includes all sorts, including minorities that many don't want to embrace. And what's your point? snipped The appropriate, polite way to deal with things you don't like - is speak *once* and state your case fully when you do. It's healthy to express concerns - it's unhealthy, to all, when you flood forums with them. The means justifies the ends - and bullying doesn't end well. snipped example of how not to act Whatever ... You should have snipped your own posts to begin with. Anyway, you didn't contribute anthing to what the OP said, and I don't find this part of the discussion worthwhile at all. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- 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/87wq6b3p38@gulltop.yagibdah.de
Re: XDG Standard is not evil (was: Re: Why focus on systemd?)
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:00:05 AM UTC+5:30, Serge wrote: 2014/11/16 Peter Nieman wrote: Has anyone ever wondered where all these funny directories like ~/.cache, ~/.config, ~/.local or even ~/Desktop (with a capital D) came from that appeared in Debian after upgrading to - was it Lenny? Here's an answer: http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html People often misunderstand what XDG standards were created for. Imagine that you're writing some graphical application in those old days before XDG standards appeared. And you want to put a link to it to the main menu of your DE/WM. Where would you put it? ~/.gnome2/vfolders/applications? ~/.kde/share/applnk? Maybe .icewm/menu? Or all of them? What if you want to autostart it on login? ~/.kde/Autostart? ~/.kde/share/autostart? ~/.gnome2/autostart? The problem arises when MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT apps need SAME files. So they came together and created XDG standard. It looks like: [autostart-spec] system-wide autostart files are placed in $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS/autostart/ user-specific overrides go to $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/autostart/ based on the desktop base directory specification. [menu-spec] .menu files are placed in $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS/menus/ .desktop files are placed in $XDG_DATA_DIRS/applications/ user overrides go to $XDG_DATA_HOME/applications/ and $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/menus according to the desktop base directory specification. and so on. The Base Directory Specification itself is just html page to reference, a base for other XDG specifications, that's why it's called base. As its original author said [1]: XDG Base Directory spec is intended for use by other specification. For example the XDG Menu specification and Autostart specification refer to the XDG Base Directory specification instead of reinventing their own filesystem locations / hierarchy. It just gives the meaning to directories, used by *other XDG standards*, which brought peace and clarity to the mess of desktop environments. Those XDG standards were created by X Desktop Group only to define unified directories for COMMON files of multiple X desktop environments, not for some rogue applications to hide their own private files. Each of files placed in those directories is extensively documented by other XDG standards. Later some people started to abuse those directories and put there files, that never supposed to be there. Those people don't really think about standards or unification. Usually they just enable displaying hidden files in their file manager, see a lot of dotfiles in a home directory and think that this is wrong. They start searching how to fix this, find xdg basedir-spec, and use it as an excuse for moving ~/.appname files, to ~/.config/appname, or worse, split them among .config, .local, .cache... They don't think about /etc/xdg, they don't read FHS or other XDG standards, they don't care about people who have to do 2-4 times more work to find and migrate settings of selected application to another machine, they just don't want to see dotfiles. But don't blame XDG standard for that, blame people abusing it to reduce the number of dotfiles in their home directory. [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/unity-design/msg02114.html -- Serge I have a question along these lines: Years ago when we used computers, many people used one machine -- centrally administered. Nowadays one person uses many machines 1. Simply multiple hardware 2. Multiple OSes on the same h/w 3. Other more fancy (cloud) usage Just staying with 2. for now and that too only Linux, its a good idea to map the One-me -- Many OSes to One /home -- Many 'slashes' (eg Debian on sda5, Debian 32 on sda7 ubuntu on sda6 etc) However there are some issues: if the software-versions in these dont match up then its precisely these XDG files that tread on each others' toes across OSes. One solution that Ive been toying with is as follows: 1. Have one real My-home partition 2. Keep /home as part of the OS-file system, so that each OS can mess around with its own 'XDG's' I wonder if people have tried this (or something similar) and any downsides -- 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/ba47c259-1d40-4203-aace-499d0218f...@googlegroups.com
Re: XDG Standard is not evil (was: Re: Why focus on systemd?)
I do this on my own machine. The visible stuff I used to keep in my home directory is now in a separate partition mounted on ~/Desktop. I've noticed just one downside: cd no longer takes me to a useful place. So I have an alias called cdd that takes me to Desktop and I'm trying to remember to use it, and I've changed .bash_aliases to cd there as well, so shells start in Desktop rather than the real home directory. Other than that, I like this arrangement just fine. My OSes can all share the Desktop and have their own /home and ~/ directories. On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Rusi Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:00:05 AM UTC+5:30, Serge wrote: 2014/11/16 Peter Nieman wrote: Has anyone ever wondered where all these funny directories like ~/.cache, ~/.config, ~/.local or even ~/Desktop (with a capital D) came from that appeared in Debian after upgrading to - was it Lenny? Here's an answer: http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html People often misunderstand what XDG standards were created for. Imagine that you're writing some graphical application in those old days before XDG standards appeared. And you want to put a link to it to the main menu of your DE/WM. Where would you put it? ~/.gnome2/vfolders/applications? ~/.kde/share/applnk? Maybe .icewm/menu? Or all of them? What if you want to autostart it on login? ~/.kde/Autostart? ~/.kde/share/autostart? ~/.gnome2/autostart? The problem arises when MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT apps need SAME files. So they came together and created XDG standard. It looks like: [autostart-spec] system-wide autostart files are placed in $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS/autostart/ user-specific overrides go to $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/autostart/ based on the desktop base directory specification. [menu-spec] .menu files are placed in $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS/menus/ .desktop files are placed in $XDG_DATA_DIRS/applications/ user overrides go to $XDG_DATA_HOME/applications/ and $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/menus according to the desktop base directory specification. and so on. The Base Directory Specification itself is just html page to reference, a base for other XDG specifications, that's why it's called base. As its original author said [1]: XDG Base Directory spec is intended for use by other specification. For example the XDG Menu specification and Autostart specification refer to the XDG Base Directory specification instead of reinventing their own filesystem locations / hierarchy. It just gives the meaning to directories, used by *other XDG standards*, which brought peace and clarity to the mess of desktop environments. Those XDG standards were created by X Desktop Group only to define unified directories for COMMON files of multiple X desktop environments, not for some rogue applications to hide their own private files. Each of files placed in those directories is extensively documented by other XDG standards. Later some people started to abuse those directories and put there files, that never supposed to be there. Those people don't really think about standards or unification. Usually they just enable displaying hidden files in their file manager, see a lot of dotfiles in a home directory and think that this is wrong. They start searching how to fix this, find xdg basedir-spec, and use it as an excuse for moving ~/.appname files, to ~/.config/appname, or worse, split them among .config, .local, .cache... They don't think about /etc/xdg, they don't read FHS or other XDG standards, they don't care about people who have to do 2-4 times more work to find and migrate settings of selected application to another machine, they just don't want to see dotfiles. But don't blame XDG standard for that, blame people abusing it to reduce the number of dotfiles in their home directory. [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/unity-design/msg02114.html -- Serge I have a question along these lines: Years ago when we used computers, many people used one machine -- centrally administered. Nowadays one person uses many machines 1. Simply multiple hardware 2. Multiple OSes on the same h/w 3. Other more fancy (cloud) usage Just staying with 2. for now and that too only Linux, its a good idea to map the One-me -- Many OSes to One /home -- Many 'slashes' (eg Debian on sda5, Debian 32 on sda7 ubuntu on sda6 etc) However there are some issues: if the software-versions in these dont match up then its precisely these XDG files that tread on each others' toes across OSes. One solution that Ive been toying with is as follows: 1. Have one real My-home partition 2. Keep /home as part of the OS-file system, so that each OS can mess around with its own 'XDG's' I wonder if people have tried this (or something similar) and any downsides -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes: Please don't top post. On 22/11/14 20:50, lee wrote: Didier, you have *totally* missed the OPs point. BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover Hyperbole much? ? what has been the outcome of the GR to support multiple init systems? It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Huh? Does that mean that the users are left to deal themselves with the problems that could arise from this? Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time something is related to the freedesktop stuff, Freedesktop just provides hosting. Substitute Sourceforge for Freedesktop and see how well your theory flies. freedesktop.org is open source / open discussion software projects working on interoperability and shared technology for X Window System desktops. The most famous X desktops are GNOME and KDE, but developers working on any Linux/UNIX GUI technology are welcome to participate.[1] [1]: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/ it's not understandable at all because the documentation utterly sucks or doesn't even exist. It's an entirely dead end. Do we really need or want that? If we need it, what for? If we want it, wouldn't we be much better off using Windows? Please replace we with I - it gives the misleading impression you speak for the vast majority when you only speak for yourself. Please learn to read and to understand what you're reading, and you may find that I was asking questions. To draw a map for you, try replacing we with users. Note that opposition to *the choice* of using systemd 'probably' constitutes less than 1% of users. Noise, repitition, and FUD doesn't:- ;increase that percentage ;give you credibility ;justify your bullying and works against those that have genuine problems with systemd. And why do you mention this here? Did you read the OPs post? The appropriate, polite way to deal with things you don't like - is speak *once* and state your case fully when you do. It's healthy to express concerns - it's unhealthy, to all, when you flood forums with them. The means justifies the ends - and bullying doesn't end well. And you are the one to define for everyone what is to be considered as polite? I want to know what's going on with my computer. Freedesktop stuff prevents that. Clearly it's not a project's choice of hosting that prevents your lack of knowledge. How is this relevant? Nobody understands udev rules, Again - you're incorrect, and speaking for yourself. Show me ten Debian users who understand them. *I* am not the only person who understands udev rules - far from it. (small hint: I read the man files - my lips didn't even get sore!) and I'm not happy that Noted, many, many times - that you behave like a bad child. snipped Lol, are you really that stupid? Can we Debian Users have the list back now please? Feel free to continue your campaign on Debian Abusers - it'd be more appropriate. Don't you think. I don't know what you're referring to. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- 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/87y4qvay5x@gulltop.yagibdah.de
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 29 November 2014 at 07:05, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes: snipped On 22/11/14 20:50, lee wrote: Didier, you have *totally* missed the OPs point. BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover Hyperbole much? ? the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device what has been the outcome of the GR to support multiple init systems? It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Huh? Does that mean that the users are left to deal themselves with the problems that could arise from this? Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time something is related to the freedesktop stuff, Freedesktop just provides hosting. Substitute Sourceforge for Freedesktop and see how well your theory flies. freedesktop.org is open source / open discussion software projects working on interoperability and shared technology for X Window System desktops. The most famous X desktops are GNOME and KDE, but developers working on any Linux/UNIX GUI technology are welcome to participate.[1] How does that demonstrate that the systemd project is not hosted by freedesktop.org? Did your lips get sore or did you not quote the very next paragraph for other reasons? quote Software freedesktop.org hosts any on-topic software projects/quote [1]: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/ it's not understandable at all because the documentation utterly sucks or doesn't even exist. It's an entirely dead end. Do we really need or want that? If we need it, what for? If we want it, wouldn't we be much better off using Windows? Please replace we with I - it gives the misleading impression you speak for the vast majority when you only speak for yourself. Please learn to read and to understand what you're reading, and you may find that I was asking questions. You could learn a lot about yourself by eating your own dog food. To draw a map for you, try replacing we with users. Save your crayons. I'm a Debian user. I wouldn't be better off using Windows. You speak only for your self, not everybody (or even a significant majority) and it would be presumptuous to believe otherwise don't you think? Note that opposition to *the choice* of using systemd 'probably' constitutes less than 1% of users. Noise, repetition, and FUD doesn't:- ;increase that percentage ;give you credibility ;justify your bullying and works against those that have genuine problems with systemd. And why do you mention this here? To provide constructive advice on how to get along with a *community*. Not in the expectation that everyone cares. Community includes all sorts, including minorities that many don't want to embrace. snipped The appropriate, polite way to deal with things you don't like - is speak *once* and state your case fully when you do. It's healthy to express concerns - it's unhealthy, to all, when you flood forums with them. The means justifies the ends - and bullying doesn't end well. snipped example of how not to act 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/camt2cqnxl8vdf2dbbu7opedzgaor4-bsn38zuuks08qdghi...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 November 2014 at 07:05, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes: [...] Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time something is related to the freedesktop stuff, Freedesktop just provides hosting. Substitute Sourceforge for Freedesktop and see how well your theory flies. freedesktop.org is open source / open discussion software projects working on interoperability and shared technology for X Window System desktops. The most famous X desktops are GNOME and KDE, but developers working on any Linux/UNIX GUI technology are welcome to participate.[1] How does that demonstrate that the systemd project is not hosted by freedesktop.org? Did your lips get sore or did you not quote the very next paragraph for other reasons? quote Software freedesktop.org hosts any on-topic software projects/quote on-topic Well, as long as we are going to look for things to quote on their front page, let's quote the whole front page: -- Welcome to freedesktop.org freedesktop.org is open source / open discussion software projects working on interoperability and shared technology for X Window System desktops. The most famous X desktops are GNOME and KDE, but developers working on any Linux/UNIX GUI technology are welcome to participate. freedesktop.org is building a base platform for desktop software on Linux and UNIX. The elements of this platform have become the backend for higher-level application-visible APIs such as Qt, GTK+, XUL, VCL, WINE, GNOME, and KDE. The base platform is both software and specifications. Software freedesktop.org hosts any on-topic software projects. If you have a project that fits into our mission and needs hosting, please make a request using our bugzilla. Mailing lists about freedesktop software are hosted here. Standards freedesktop.org is not a formal standards organization, though some see a need for one that covers some of the areas we are working on. For Linux operating system standards, look at the Linux Standard Base project. The X.Org Foundation and the IETF are other groups that do formal standards. The Free Standards Group is one group that publishes de jure standards for free software; freedesktop.org is loosely affiliated with the FSG. Unlike a standards organization, freedesktop.org is a collaboration zone where ideas and code are tossed around, and de facto specifications are encouraged. The primary entry to these discussions is the xdg mailing list. Getting Involved You can get involved in a number of ways. See the MissionStatement for our principle activities. See GettingInvolved for concrete suggestions on how you can contribute. See AccountRequests for information on how to obtain commit access to a project. See NewProject for how to start a new project. Contacting freedesktop If you have any comments or questions about this site please send a message to the xdg list. Sponsors The freedesktop.org servers are generously hosted by Portland State University. Intel, HP and Google have sponsored the servers themselves and Collabora are sponsoring sysadmin time. This wiki is undergoing conversion. If you have a fd.o shell account, you can help! Last edited Fri 17 May 2013 10:20:57 PM PDT -- FWIW [...] I have sometimes confused myself by going to opendesktop.org when I meant to go to freedesktop.org. But I don't think that could be the cause of the confusion. -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well. -- 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/CAAr43iMwSvU=3zummbahwej5c9pdn1fob0-oruovy7osrx6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: XDG Standard is not evil (was: Re: Why focus on systemd?)
On 11/28/2014 6:32 AM, Rusi Mody wrote: I have a question along these lines: Years ago when we used computers, many people used one machine -- centrally administered. Nowadays one person uses many machines 1. Simply multiple hardware 2. Multiple OSes on the same h/w 3. Other more fancy (cloud) usage Just staying with 2. for now and that too only Linux, its a good idea to map the One-me -- Many OSes to One /home -- Many 'slashes' (eg Debian on sda5, Debian 32 on sda7 ubuntu on sda6 etc) However there are some issues: if the software-versions in these dont match up then its precisely these XDG files that tread on each others' toes across OSes. XDG is not relevant to that. Database formats change. Software that use databases change formatting of information they store. Configuration options/formats change. Software developers usually only plan for the upgrading of these things. If they do plan for downgrades it would normally only be for rare special circumstances. The Debian packaging system lets you downgrade packages, but there is a disclaimer for the same reason. Allowing older versions of software access to newer databases, configuration files, etc... can get ugly. Allowing older and newer the same increases the risk. One solution that Ive been toying with is as follows: 1. Have one real My-home partition 2. Keep /home as part of the OS-file system, so that each OS can mess around with its own 'XDG's' I wonder if people have tried this (or something similar) and any downsides Depends on what you consider a down side. Chrome and Firefox have solutions for bookmarks... http://askubuntu.com/questions/41766/is-it-possible-to-enable-google-bookmarks-sync-in-chromium https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-set-up-firefox-sync Assuming you don't just use webmail, and your email provider supports it, there is imap for email. http://www.pop2imap.com/ Pictures, music, etc... can all be kept on another partition, creating symlinks in your home directory within each installation in place of the real Documents, Pictures, etc... that would normally be there. As root you can do something like: |groupadd sharedusers -g 2000 :to create a group in each installation: |chown -R :sharedusers /location/of/shared/directory :in one of the installations to change the group ownership of the directory where you put your pictures, documents, etc... note the ':' before the group name. To change group permissions on the shared files/directories you can do something like: chmod -R g+rwX :note capital X, execute/search only if the file is a directory or already has execute permission for some user. Later, Seeker
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Buntunub mckis...@gmail.com writes: Wow, its Lawyer time! Or so one would think reading through this thread. Is this what the Debian community has devolved to? Quibbling over technicalities of the Debian Constitution? Sure gives a lot of weight to Mr. Hess's departing words. That document has turned into a poison pill for this Distro. If we want to talk about Systemd, then talk about Systemd - its technical merits vs. it's cons, etc.. Leave the Lawyering to the Lawyers. Sorry, no can do. Whenever a resolution by a project is taken with less than consensus, and the losing party is determined to make an ass out of themselves by being a very vocal obstructive minority, you will get lawyering if you have *any* rules at all. The problem is that some persons decided to use the Constitution in a toxic manner, not the Constitution itself. This is not a unique problem to Debian, and short of just shooting all opposition essentially unsolvable. Mart -- We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes. --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source. -- 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/8661e111mg@gaheris.avalon.lan
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 02:55:49PM -0700, Buntunub wrote: Is this what the Debian community has devolved to? Sadly, debian-user has long failed to represent the Debian community at-large, and things are only getting worse. -- 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/20141127101333.ga5...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 02:55:49PM -0700, Buntunub wrote: Is this what the Debian community has devolved to? Sadly, debian-user has long failed to represent the Debian community at-large, and things are only getting worse. Statistically speaking, we can't help but have a biased sample unless the ordinary user decides to take an interest in the problems others have. Without that interest, they don't participate here, and that's the reason the sample is biased. But it would even help reduce the arguing if the ordinary user would just take an interest in writing code. Historically speaking, though, I don't think it's getting worse. -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well. -- 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/caar43ioqhhryzekd64rjmqs6vmhc2_znnatdvbhae6mx3-d...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit : On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit : Did I miss something? Yes. Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1] Option 2: change init policy *LOST* Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost* Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON* Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default* [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe this is the real issue Iff you're using the same option numbers as those on the ballot, that's a totally wrong reading of the GR results, IMHO. Option 4 won all pairwise duels against all other options, and as such, is the winning option. All other options besides 5 (FD) won their pairwise duels against FD. Saying that Option 1 (…) won by default is factually wrong. It's summary was not init policy stands either. This is only my interpretation as an armchair observer, also in the US called Monday morning quarterback. It was a policy vote. No; absolutely not; it was a General Resolution. Debian doesn't have policy votes (the Debian Policy updating process is based on consensus evaluation through Policy amendments seconding, see the debian-policy list). The only results that matter are their effect on Debian Policy, right? The rest is academic. That's IMHO a completely biased way to look at this GR and its results: especially when one message carried by the winning option is we should not use GRs to set technical policy. I invite you to go read Russ Allbery's interpretation for a good reading of the results. https://lists.debian.org/871toyj2bh@hope.eyrie.org The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision Wrong: only some options on the ballot did invoke that clause, the winning option didn't, for example. Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd: 9.11 is not designed to preserve init system choices, at all. It was designed to preserve a Debian archive working with the default init at the time, nothing more. Putting some was designed to prevent problems posed by systemd in this Policy chapter's intentions, at the very least, misleading. (…) so Option 1 was a non-controversial interpretation of Debian Policy (as I read the -vote discussion). I don't _at_all_ read the -vote discussion that way. Option 1 was considered highly problematic because (amongst other problems) it was creating a _new_ technical requirement through GR. Option 1 therefore wins by default, especially if the (apparent) consensus about init coupling being a bug is affirmed in practice. I don't understand how you can reach this conclusion. Option 1 was the least preferred amongst non-FD options. OdyX -- 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/7095856.6iTIQ5buoO@gyllingar
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 11/26/2014 at 08:50 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit : On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision Wrong: only some options on the ballot did invoke that clause, the winning option didn't, for example. But without the options which did, would there have been any point in the vote's taking place at all? I think this one was a fair characterization of the GR proposal, and thus the vote on it, as a whole. Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd: 9.11 is not designed to preserve init system choices, at all. It was designed to preserve a Debian archive working with the default init at the time, nothing more. While this may be true... Putting some was designed to prevent problems posed by systemd in this Policy chapter's intentions, at the very least, misleading. ...this is, itself, misleading. He did not say that the policy was designed to prevent problems posed by systemd. He said the policy was designed to prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd - or, to paraphrase, that A: it was designed to prevent problems of a certain kind, and B: systemd poses problems of that kind. Whether or not he's wrong about what the policy was designed to do, to assert that he's asserting that the policy was designed to oppose systemd (which is the sense I infer from your comment) would simply be putting words in his mouth. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le mercredi, 26 novembre 2014, 09.21:00 The Wanderer a écrit : On 11/26/2014 at 08:50 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le lundi, 24 novembre 2014, 08.02:44 Marty a écrit : On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision Wrong: only some options on the ballot did invoke that clause, the winning option didn't, for example. But without the options which did, would there have been any point in the vote's taking place at all? That's kind of what the winning option said: no, there was no point in having the vote in the first place, our existing procedures are working just fine. (+ we don't want to be setting Technical Policy through GR). Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd: 9.11 is not designed to preserve init system choices, at all. It was designed to preserve a Debian archive working with the default init at the time, nothing more. While this may be true... Putting some was designed to prevent problems posed by systemd in this Policy chapter's intentions, at the very least, misleading. ...this is, itself, misleading. Indeed, sorry for the copy-paste typo. I'm saying that §9.11 was not designed for anything else than ensuring that the Debian archive would keep working with the default init system of the time, nothing more. Reading between its lines to try convincing readers that it was designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd is dishonest, IMHO. Feel free to go ask the policy editors if you disagree. Cheers, OdyX signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Wow, its Lawyer time! Or so one would think reading through this thread. Is this what the Debian community has devolved to? Quibbling over technicalities of the Debian Constitution? Sure gives a lot of weight to Mr. Hess's departing words. That document has turned into a poison pill for this Distro. If we want to talk about Systemd, then talk about Systemd - its technical merits vs. it's cons, etc.. Leave the Lawyering to the Lawyers. -- View this message in context: http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Why-focus-on-systemd-tp3427339p3438428.html Sent from the Debian User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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/1417038949164-3438428.p...@n7.nabble.com
XDG Standard is not evil (was: Re: Why focus on systemd?)
2014/11/16 Peter Nieman wrote: Has anyone ever wondered where all these funny directories like ~/.cache, ~/.config, ~/.local or even ~/Desktop (with a capital D) came from that appeared in Debian after upgrading to - was it Lenny? Here's an answer: http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html People often misunderstand what XDG standards were created for. Imagine that you're writing some graphical application in those old days before XDG standards appeared. And you want to put a link to it to the main menu of your DE/WM. Where would you put it? ~/.gnome2/vfolders/applications? ~/.kde/share/applnk? Maybe .icewm/menu? Or all of them? What if you want to autostart it on login? ~/.kde/Autostart? ~/.kde/share/autostart? ~/.gnome2/autostart? The problem arises when MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT apps need SAME files. So they came together and created XDG standard. It looks like: [autostart-spec] system-wide autostart files are placed in $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS/autostart/ user-specific overrides go to $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/autostart/ based on the desktop base directory specification. [menu-spec] .menu files are placed in $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS/menus/ .desktop files are placed in $XDG_DATA_DIRS/applications/ user overrides go to $XDG_DATA_HOME/applications/ and $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/menus according to the desktop base directory specification. and so on. The Base Directory Specification itself is just html page to reference, a base for other XDG specifications, that's why it's called base. As its original author said [1]: XDG Base Directory spec is intended for use by other specification. For example the XDG Menu specification and Autostart specification refer to the XDG Base Directory specification instead of reinventing their own filesystem locations / hierarchy. It just gives the meaning to directories, used by *other XDG standards*, which brought peace and clarity to the mess of desktop environments. Those XDG standards were created by X Desktop Group only to define unified directories for COMMON files of multiple X desktop environments, not for some rogue applications to hide their own private files. Each of files placed in those directories is extensively documented by other XDG standards. Later some people started to abuse those directories and put there files, that never supposed to be there. Those people don't really think about standards or unification. Usually they just enable displaying hidden files in their file manager, see a lot of dotfiles in a home directory and think that this is wrong. They start searching how to fix this, find xdg basedir-spec, and use it as an excuse for moving ~/.appname files, to ~/.config/appname, or worse, split them among .config, .local, .cache... They don't think about /etc/xdg, they don't read FHS or other XDG standards, they don't care about people who have to do 2-4 times more work to find and migrate settings of selected application to another machine, they just don't want to see dotfiles. But don't blame XDG standard for that, blame people abusing it to reduce the number of dotfiles in their home directory. [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/unity-design/msg02114.html -- Serge -- 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/caovener+ek2blbhhq7u5k0hhbwbtyj70c7xzbzrs8ouspfg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 11/26/2014 10:02 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: I'm saying that §9.11 was not designed for anything else than ensuring that the Debian archive would keep working with the default init system of the time, nothing more. Except for its actual purpose, ensuring a choice of Alternate init systems. Reading between its lines to try convincing readers that it was designed to preserve init system choices That's what alternate means. You can choose. and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd systemd has raised all these problems. is dishonest, IMHO. Feel free to go ask the policy editors if you disagree. No need, the policy is clear. Cheers, OdyX -- 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/5476871d.3060...@ix.netcom.com
Re: XDG Standard is not evil (was: Re: Why focus on systemd?)
On 11/26/2014 6:04 PM, Serge wrote: Those XDG standards were created by X Desktop Group only to define unified directories for COMMON files of multiple X desktop environments, not for some rogue applications to hide their own private files. Each of files placed in those directories is extensively documented by other XDG standards. Later some people started to abuse those directories and put there files, that never supposed to be there. Those people don't really think about standards or unification. Usually they just enable displaying hidden files in their file manager, see a lot of dotfiles in a home directory and think that this is wrong. They start searching how to fix this, find xdg basedir-spec, and use it as an excuse for moving ~/.appname files, to ~/.config/appname, or worse, split them among .config, .local, .cache... They don't think about /etc/xdg, they don't read FHS or other XDG standards, they don't care about people who have to do 2-4 times more work to find and migrate settings of selected application to another machine, they just don't want to see dotfiles. But don't blame XDG standard for that, blame people abusing it to reduce the number of dotfiles in their home directory. [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/unity-design/msg02114.html Are you saying you think it's a bad thing that .config files got moved in to a .config directory instead of multiple other locations? The /etc/xdg location would be for the defaults, not the user specific stuff. Looking at /etc/xdg it does appear it could be used more. It's not 2010 anymore so specs are adhered to better than they were when https://lists.launchpad.net/unity-design/msg02114.html was posted, at least for the user specific stuff, .config, .local, etc Later, Seeker -- 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/5476c8e8.9030...@comcast.net
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 11/24/2014 02:14 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit : Did I miss something? Yes. Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1] Option 2: change init policy *LOST* Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost* Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON* Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default* [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe this is the real issue Iff you're using the same option numbers as those on the ballot, that's a totally wrong reading of the GR results, IMHO. Option 4 won all pairwise duels against all other options, and as such, is the winning option. All other options besides 5 (FD) won their pairwise duels against FD. Saying that Option 1 (…) won by default is factually wrong. It's summary was not init policy stands either. OdyX This is only my interpretation as an armchair observer, also in the US called Monday morning quarterback. It was a policy vote. The only results that matter are their effect on Debian Policy, right? The rest is academic. The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision, in anticipation of confusion or disagreement over its effect. Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd: However, any package integrating with other init systems must also be backwards-compatible with sysvinit ... So that leaves only the PID 1 question (hence my footnote). Note, however, that there is no reasonable way to claim that any package that only works with systemd as PID 1 could be regarded as backwards compatible with sysvinit, so Option 1 was a non-controversial interpretation of Debian Policy (as I read the -vote discussion). The only (or main) issue was only that it should be put to a vote, or at least put to a vote in this way, hence Option 4 was included. Option 4 states that the policy is fine and no restatement about PID 1 is needed. It does not say Option 1 is the wrong interpretation of policy. Only Option 2 overturns policy, by negating Option 1. Option 4 indirectly negates Option 2 and does not say anything about any other options. Option 1 therefore wins by default, especially if the (apparent) consensus about init coupling being a bug is affirmed in practice. The project seems to be saying that the issue should be resolved case by case and not be subject to a blanket rule, which seems reasonable to me. The vote also explains why the GR was rejected the first time around. -- 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/54732c74.8090...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Lu, 24 nov 14, 08:02:44, Marty wrote: It was a policy vote. The only results that matter are their effect on Debian Policy, right? The rest is academic. The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision, in anticipation of confusion or disagreement over its effect. Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd: However, any package integrating with other init systems must also be backwards-compatible with sysvinit ... I think you're missing a perhaps crucial point: the Debian Policy has not been updated yet to account for systemd being default, it still assumes sysvinit as default. See #591791, fixed in Policy 3.9.4.0, uploaded on 18 Sep 2012. 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: Why focus on systemd?
On 11/24/2014 04:16 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Lu, 24 nov 14, 08:02:44, Marty wrote: It was a policy vote. The only results that matter are their effect on Debian Policy, right? The rest is academic. The vote invoked a clause in the TC init decision to allow modifying or overturning the policy set by the TC init decision, in anticipation of confusion or disagreement over its effect. Option 1 only restates or clarifies the existing init policy, 9.11, which is designed to preserve init system choices and prevent the kind of problems posed by systemd: However, any package integrating with other init systems must also be backwards-compatible with sysvinit ... I think you're missing a perhaps crucial point: the Debian Policy has not been updated yet to account for systemd being default, it still assumes sysvinit as default. See #591791, fixed in Policy 3.9.4.0, uploaded on 18 Sep 2012. Kind regards, Andrei I read a good bit of it. he first thing I notice is that it didn't take 9 months to update the policy. Maybe I missed your point. It looks like a successful application of policy that reinforces my interpretation, this message in particular: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591791#124 Just to be sure I rechecked 9.11, and it doesn't mention default init, so why would it be changed? What system besides sysvinit could provide backwards compatibility to serve the purpose of 9.11? In the TC discussion of bug #727708 there is talk (on the pro-systemd side) of hoping to change the policy changing in the future, after Jessie, but it was clearly not the issue under debate. -- 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/5473e656.7020...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 2014-11-22, Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: What next? Shall we debate gravity or other pointless exercises[*1] (unless the Debian User list has become a school for aspiring sophists)? I've always been against gravity and am amazed it ever got off the ground. Who's Sophie? -- 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/slrnm73g9v.30l.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 23/11/14 22:13, Curt wrote: On 2014-11-22, Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: What next? Shall we debate gravity or other pointless exercises[*1] (unless the Debian User list has become a school for aspiring sophists)? I've always been against gravity and am amazed it ever got off the ground. I debate that! This is one of many problems with the human constitution. Do you understand the Constitution? No one does - am I right or am I right? I'm right (you're left - you pinko, orangey. Don't take that the wrong way...) Constitution is a woody word. So is Defenestration. Denialists say that causation is not consumption - but I say where's the evidence?. [Obscure Wheezy pun] Who's Sophie? My *server* has always worked just fine without her, and lot's of people say she works for the NSE. I've heard she abuses small animals - but it all fairness I wanna extend the opportunity for her to provide conclusive evidence that it ain't so. Note: We sent a letter to Sophie (I asked my secretary to write one as I speak - indicated by head nod) - but she hasn't responded. Make of *that* what you will (you social progressive type would - tell me I'm not wrong) Makes sense to me, let's ask an average salt of the earth[*1] reader [returning you now to the regular Debian User list] [*1 mmmhmm Salted earth - good thingy. Your sensationally, Glenn Beck (channelling Duane Gish via Shirley McLaine) -- 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/5471cc25.2080...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:47:51PM +0100, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. The Constitution might need to be rewritten, to support your POW. While Debian always have been a meritocracy, the constitution have its load of weasel words, that implies the opposite. weasel words ?? -- 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/20141123161652.GB12221@tal
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 2014-11-23, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: weasel words ?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word -- 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/slrnm7439d.30l.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 11/22/2014 06:43 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. Did I miss something? Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1] Option 2: change init policy *LOST* Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost* Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON* Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default* [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe this is the real issue The good new is there's an explanation for those that can't read:- http://blog.halon.org.uk/2014/11/barbie-the-debian-developer/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=barbie-the-debian-developer Cheers, Ron. 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/54726946.7050...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Marty wrote: On 11/22/2014 06:43 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. Did I miss something? Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1] Option 2: change init policy *LOST* Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost* Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON* Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default* [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe this is the real issue Well... maybe a commitment on the part of the debootstrap maintainers to apply test the existing contributed patch that fixes but #668001, sometime real soon after Jessie is released would go a LONG way to putting a lot of these issues to rest. That way, it would be straightforward to preseed a sysvinit based install, and maybe everything will just work, or at least we'd have a basis for starting to work through the bugs associated with a clean sysvinit install that doesn't involve rolling your own version of a patched installer. 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/54727231.4040...@meetinghouse.net
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 11/23/2014 11:16 AM, Chris Bannister wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:47:51PM +0100, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. The Constitution might need to be rewritten, to support your POW. While Debian always have been a meritocracy, the constitution have its load of weasel words, that implies the opposite. weasel words ?? That's French for words of a weasel. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- 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/54728fbc.9040...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 11/23/2014 06:48 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Marty wrote: On 11/22/2014 06:43 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. Did I miss something? Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1] Option 2: change init policy *LOST* Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost* Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON* Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default* [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe this is the real issue Well... maybe a commitment on the part of the debootstrap maintainers to apply test the existing contributed patch that fixes but #668001, sometime real soon after Jessie is released would go a LONG way to putting a lot of these issues to rest. That way, it would be straightforward to preseed a sysvinit based install, and maybe everything will just work, or at least we'd have a basis for starting to work through the bugs associated with a clean sysvinit install that doesn't involve rolling your own version of a patched installer. Miles Fidelman Or just use a testing version of the installer, and then there's the Jessie-ignore wild card, which was agreed to be liberally applied because none nobody wants to play lawyer. In the end I guess the issue is put to rest if policy is allowed to stand through Jessie+1 freeze, and overturning takes two thirds majority if I understand correctly. As things stand multi-init support looks good and the best way for systemd opponents to be their own worst enemy is to buy into the notion that their side has lost. -- 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/54729987.7040...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le dimanche, 23 novembre 2014, 18.09:58 Marty a écrit : Did I miss something? Yes. Option 1: init policy stands *won by default* [1] Option 2: change init policy *LOST* Option 3: ask nicely to follow init policy *lost* Option 4: policy stands, no statement needed *WON* Option 5: null option, further discussion *won by default* [1] depending on bug status of package dependence on PID 1, so maybe this is the real issue Iff you're using the same option numbers as those on the ballot, that's a totally wrong reading of the GR results, IMHO. Option 4 won all pairwise duels against all other options, and as such, is the winning option. All other options besides 5 (FD) won their pairwise duels against FD. Saying that Option 1 (…) won by default is factually wrong. It's summary was not init policy stands either. OdyX -- 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/12232320.aQDQiIBOmO@gyllingar
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Didier, you have *totally* missed the OPs point. BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover will happen (despite it already has), what has been the outcome of the GR to support multiple init systems? Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time something is related to the freedesktop stuff, it's not understandable at all because the documentation utterly sucks or doesn't even exist. It's an entirely dead end. Do we really need or want that? If we need it, what for? If we want it, wouldn't we be much better off using Windows? I want to know what's going on with my computer. Freedesktop stuff prevents that. Nobody understands udev rules, and I'm not happy that installing emacs-nox (on a server) pulls in dbus. Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes: Le dimanche, 16 novembre 2014, 16.36:42 Peter Nieman a écrit : Preventing the systemd takeover is certainly important, but it won't be enough to reverse the trend, I fear. None of the talking on debian-user about meta, conceptual or generic systemd issues will allow a systemd takeover in Debian; none. NONE. The Debian Technical Committee was asked to resolve a dispute of overlapping jurisdictions by deciding (in agreement with the Debian Constitution) which init system would be default for the Jessie release. It decided to put 'systemd' on the ballot and the outcome of the vote was 'systemd'. The TC included a possibility to override this decision with an exceptional '1:1' majority requirement. The Developers' body which could have overriden this decision, hasn't done so, at all (a GR to do so was not even proposed). That decision of the Debian TC is therefore 'in force' for the whole Debian project. You might very well be unhappy with this situation, the way the decision was taken, the way it wasn't challenged by the DDs, the fact that no conditions were posed to systemd maintainers, or anything else, that's totally fine. Please just be aware that repeating your unhappiness ad nauseam will not change that fact. In fact, I'm quite sure that the 'meta' discussions about systemd on debian-user are seriously annoying to a lot of subscribers and to a lot of developers too. This, because what should be done now is not arguying endlessly, but making Jessie the best Debian release ever (given the TC decision) through making Jessie work as best as possible with systemd as init, through making Jessie work as best as possible with sysvinit as init and doing _actual testing_ of Debian Jessie, in real use-cases. Screaming and whining about supposed issues with Jessie without testing it is unproductive, noisy and unfair to the developers. You might not have noticed, but making points on debian-user against systemd-in-general or systemd-as-adopted-by-Debian is not making a case for a systemd-less Debian (much the contrary), it is not either making a case for a revert of the TC decision (much the contrary). The only way to make a case for a systemd-less Debian is to _do_it_ ! In general, debian-user is not the right venue for complaints about Debian decisions; the continuation of the debian-user hijack by these discussions is a disgrace to this list; please stop. Seriously. OdyX -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- 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/87sihb8sy0@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Please don't top post. On 22/11/14 20:50, lee wrote: Didier, you have *totally* missed the OPs point. BTW, since you assume that no systemd takeover Hyperbole much? will happen (despite it already has), what has been the outcome of the GR to support multiple init systems? It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Other than that, the OP has a good point. I found that every time something is related to the freedesktop stuff, Freedesktop just provides hosting. Substitute Sourceforge for Freedesktop and see how well your theory flies. it's not understandable at all because the documentation utterly sucks or doesn't even exist. It's an entirely dead end. Do we really need or want that? If we need it, what for? If we want it, wouldn't we be much better off using Windows? Please replace we with I - it gives the misleading impression you speak for the vast majority when you only speak for yourself. Note that opposition to *the choice* of using systemd 'probably' constitutes less than 1% of users. Noise, repitition, and FUD doesn't:- ;increase that percentage ;give you credibility ;justify your bullying and works against those that have genuine problems with systemd. The appropriate, polite way to deal with things you don't like - is speak *once* and state your case fully when you do. It's healthy to express concerns - it's unhealthy, to all, when you flood forums with them. The means justifies the ends - and bullying doesn't end well. I want to know what's going on with my computer. Freedesktop stuff prevents that. Clearly it's not a project's choice of hosting that prevents your lack of knowledge. Nobody understands udev rules, Again - you're incorrect, and speaking for yourself. *I* am not the only person who understands udev rules - far from it. (small hint: I read the man files - my lips didn't even get sore!) and I'm not happy that Noted, many, many times - that you behave like a bad child. snipped Can we Debian Users have the list back now please? Feel free to continue your campaign on Debian Abusers - it'd be more appropriate. Don't you think. -- idealist zealots - those that would burn the planet to save their backyard -- 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/5470697b.3080...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Cheers, Ron. -- Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. --H.L. Mencken -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org -- -- 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/20141122081414.254c8...@ron.cerrocora.org
Re: Why focus on systemd?
flame resistant underwear on Scott Ferguson wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. This whole bit about developers are not being forced to do what they don't want and developers will work it out themselves is starting to get on my nerves... 1. Debian developers, for the most part, are not real developers in any imaginable sense of the word -- they're packagers, which bears precious little resemblance to software development. A few are serious integrators - worrying about the overall integrity of Debian as a system. A small few actually develop real code, unique to Debian - notably the installer and apt (one less with the departure of Joey Hess - a serious loss to the project). By and large, the real heavy lifting for any distro is done by real developers all those kernel and upstream folks that the Debian Developers package. 2. What real developers have to say: Upstream software vendors are fully dependent on downstream distributions to package their stuff. It's the downstream distribution that decides on schedules, packaging details, and how to handle support. Often upstream vendors want much faster release cycles then the downstream distributions follow. (Lennart Poettering, http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html) Chef to Debian: Please stop packaging us ... I don't care about distros (http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/is-distributionlevel-package-management-obsolete) 3. And some good comments found while researching alternate packaging systems: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?75466-Guix-A-New-Package-Manager-amp-GNU-Distribution/page2 Thread: Guix: A New Package Manager GNU Distribution ... This is a problem that should be solved by getting all the distro devs in a room and not letting them out until they find a proper solution to the problem. ... You'd have better luck herding cats. ... Cats are difficult felines sometimes, but they end learning how to live at the same place. Those developers are like doing the same to a bunch of religious fanaticals, they'll end killing each other. But distribution developers are full of massively developed egos, fanaticism and hidden commercial interests. --- Although not half as much as distro *fans* snip Please replace we with I - it gives the misleading impression you speak for the vast majority when you only speak for yourself. Note that opposition to *the choice* of using systemd 'probably' constitutes less than 1% of users. Noise, repitition, and FUD doesn't:- ;increase that percentage ;give you credibility ;justify your bullying and works against those that have genuine problems with systemd. The appropriate, polite way to deal with things you don't like - is speak *once* and state your case fully when you do. It's healthy to express concerns - it's unhealthy, to all, when you flood forums with them. The means justifies the ends - and bullying doesn't end well. see above. 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/54707556.7000...@meetinghouse.net
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. The good new is there's an explanation for those that can't read:- http://blog.halon.org.uk/2014/11/barbie-the-debian-developer/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=barbie-the-debian-developer Cheers, Ron. 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/547076c5.9000...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. No, simply refuse to acknowledge _your_ view of Debian. Cheers, Ron. -- Les lois de notre pays permettent aux romanciers de proposer en exemple tous les crimes de leurs personages, mais non point le détail de leurs voluptés, tant le massacre est aux yeux du législateur un moindre péché que le plaisir. -- Pierre Louÿs -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org -- -- 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/20141122094956.72bb5...@ron.cerrocora.org
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Dear sockpuppet - I'm surprised you're still around, I heard your bridge fell on you. [saddened] On 22/11/14 23:22, Gregory Smith wrote: Social progressives won. And that's a bad thing? I'm guessing you'd prefer social regressives (the anti-social) won. snipped On 11/22/14, Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. The good new is there's an explanation for those that can't read:- http://blog.halon.org.uk/2014/11/barbie-the-debian-developer/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=barbie-the-debian-developer snipped -- 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/547087d0.3090...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 22/11/14 09:50, lee wrote: Nobody understands udev rules, Challenge accepted. *looks at /etc/udev/rules.d* *looks at /lib/udev/rules.d* I'm honestly baffled that someone who is capable of comfortably using emacs thinks these files are incomprehensible. They appear to be written in a domain-specific declarative language with a fairly straightforward syntax. *runs man 7 udev* Yup. Pretty straightforward. Some highly-commented example files would be *nice*, but I don't see anything particularly intimidating in there. -- 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/5470a6ce.9030...@zen.co.uk
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Martin Read wrote: On 22/11/14 09:50, lee wrote: Nobody understands udev rules, Challenge accepted. *looks at /etc/udev/rules.d* *looks at /lib/udev/rules.d* I'm honestly baffled that someone who is capable of comfortably using emacs thinks these files are incomprehensible. They appear to be written in a domain-specific declarative language with a fairly straightforward syntax. *runs man 7 udev* Yup. Pretty straightforward. Some highly-commented example files would be *nice*, but I don't see anything particularly intimidating in there. They are pretty cryptic, compared to say, /etc/udev/interfaces. And complicated by the fact that one rarely has to look at udev rules, except in first setting up a system, or at zero-dark-thirty, when something breaks. I offer the all-nighter I pulled after installing a new ethernet controller, and finding that our web server wasn't talking to the net - complicated by the fact that it was one of a pair of of servers configured for hot-spare failover, with virtual hosts set to listen on statically configured IP addresses. Diagnosing and fixing the problem involved: - realizing there was a problem in the first place (system fails over, replace board on non-functioning system, seems to come backup, it's now the backup machine, subtle problem only discovered when reconfiguring active/backup configuration at a later date) - having to drive to the data center, and spend a good part of the night there - identifying udev as the problem (admittedly, udev was new at the time - having come in with the latest Debian release) - figuring out that udev had set up different addressing for the new board (it had swapped places with the board on our SAN network) - in the process, having to learn enough about udev, and untangle the gaggle of specific udev files on the systems and how they interact - identifying that the solution was to write a persistent udev rule - figuring out how to write it, and and where to put it (and then testing and debugging it - again complicated by the fact that it was one of a pair of failover machines -- can't really test a static IP address without taking BOTH machines off the air) - documenting it all and putting the information in a place where we'll remember to include the persistent rule when we (re)build systems in the future - all in the middle of the night (luckily, support lists are global) Yes... a lot more complicated than /etc/network/interfaces and ifup/ipdown. Its been years, but I still shudder when I think about it. And when I consider that similar changes, and subtle effects, almost certainly lurk in systemd and all the functions that its absorbed (systemd-), I really shudder. 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/5470b203.2030...@meetinghouse.net
Re: Why focus on systemd?
I understand your reasons for thinking Systemd is bad for Debian. I do, and I also agree with some of them. However, Debian is composed of a diverse group of people who have every viewpoint under the sun from Systemd is the bane of Linux, to Systemd is the best thing to ever happen to Linux. No matter where you fall in that spectrum though, there is one common denominator, and that is that we all use and love Debian. Let's start from there. Making Systemd default in Jessie I believe runs against the Debian philosophy of conservative approach and release when ready. While I personally disagree with Systemd, I have no problems with it being a part of the Debian family of supported apps. I do feel it is very unwise though to make it the default in Debian because of its monolithic nature and because of the dependency chain problems, which right now at least, make it difficult to run an alternative init system, which limits user choice. This mailing list is about Debian users. Let's stick to talking about issues affecting Debian users. This is my take, and why I oppose the decision to make Systemd the default in the next stable release. I certainly have no qualms about including Systemd in the next stable release, and I actually encourage it, so that people will have time to play with it and come to know and possibly even fall in love with it. I seriously do not understand why this needs to be rushed. -- View this message in context: http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Why-focus-on-systemd-tp3427339p3433806.html Sent from the Debian User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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/1416672234459-3433806.p...@n7.nabble.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Saturday 22 November 2014 16:03:54 Buntunub wrote: I certainly have no qualms about including Systemd in the next stable release, and I actually encourage it, so that people will have time to play with it and come to know and possibly even fall in love with it. I seriously do not understand why this needs to be rushed. Systemd is available in the current stable, (see below) and people have had time to play and fall in love with it (or not). So in how many Stable versions of Linux are you saying that it should be available, before those who wish to do so will have had long enough to play with it? Lisi lisi@Tux-II:~$ aptitude show systemd Package: systemd New: yes State: not installed Version: 44-11+deb7u4 Priority: extra Section: admin Maintainer: Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@debian.org Architecture: amd64 Uncompressed Size: 3,777 k Depends: libacl1 (= 2.2.51-8), libaudit0 (= 1.7.13), libc6 (= 2.11), libcap2 (= 2.10), libcryptsetup4 (= 2:1.4), libdbus-1-3 (= 1.1.1), libkmod2 (= 5~), liblzma5 (= 5.1.1alpha+20120614), libpam0g (= 0.99.7.1), libselinux1 (= 2.0.65), libsystemd-daemon0 (= 31), libsystemd-id128-0 (= 38), libsystemd-journal0 (= 38), libsystemd-login0 (= 38), libudev0 (= 172), libwrap0 (= 7.6-4~), util-linux (= 2.19.1-2), initscripts (= 2.88dsf-17), udev PreDepends: dpkg (= 1.15.7.2) Recommends: libpam-systemd Suggests: systemd-gui, python, python-dbus, python-cairo Conflicts: klogd, klogd, systemd Breaks: lsb-base ( 4.1+Debian4), lsb-base ( 4.1+Debian4), lvm2 ( 2.02.84-1), lvm2 ( 2.02.84-1) Description: system and service manager systemd is a replacement for sysvinit. It is dependency-based and able to read the LSB init script headers in addition to parsing rcN.d links as hints. It also provides process supervision using cgroups and the ability to not only depend on other init script being started, but also availability of a given mount point or dbus service. Homepage: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd lisi@Tux-II:~$ cat /etc/debian_version 7.7 lisi@Tux-II:~$ -- 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/201411221740.22337.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
2014/11/23 2:57 Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com: On Saturday 22 November 2014 16:03:54 Buntunub wrote: I certainly have no qualms about including Systemd in the next stable release, and I actually encourage it, so that people will have time to play with it and come to know and possibly even fall in love with it. I seriously do not understand why this needs to be rushed. Systemd is available in the current stable, (see below) and people have had time to play and fall in love with it (or not). So in how many Stable versions of Linux are you saying that it should be available, before those who wish to do so will have had long enough to play with it? Well, that is precisely the question. How many distros are there? How many different ways have people tried to figure out to do things, leaving their results in insufficiently commented code, here and there, all over the source code tree, in different repositories all over the world? How many different algorithms is systemd going to have to fit itself nicely to, before it quits breaking _existing_ infrastructure? What do you think Miles should have done to avoid that all-nighter? (Yes, his example was udev, not systemd, but the problem of hidden things breaking is the same.) Well, the truth about that last question is (Sorry, Miles), you can't avoid those. But overly optimistic thinking on his part doesn't excuse overly optimistic thinking on anyone else's part. And that's the reason I keep saying systemd deserved a parallel, internal fork: It works for me! does not mean It works for you! (Not picking on you, Lisi, you just asked the right question at the right time.) Joel Rees
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Lisi Reisz wrote Systemd is available in the current stable, (see below) and people have had time to play and fall in love with it (or not). So in how many Stable versions of Linux are you saying that it should be available, before those who wish to do so will have had long enough to play with it? Lisi I know it was a tech preview in Wheezy. It was not communicated to Debianland in general (to my knowledge), that this was seriously being considered as the init system/service manager for Jessie. It should have been. This is what needs to happen for Jessie, and then well take a look at it for Jessie+1. -- View this message in context: http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Why-focus-on-systemd-tp3427339p3434034.html Sent from the Debian User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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/1416686642576-3434034.p...@n7.nabble.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. The Constitution might need to be rewritten, to support your POW. While Debian always have been a meritocracy, the constitution have its load of weasel words, that implies the opposite. A lose-lose situation, in my point of view. -- //Wegge -- 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/2014114751.7ca54...@wegge.dk
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Joel Rees wrote: 2014/11/23 2:57 Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com mailto:lisi.re...@gmail.com: On Saturday 22 November 2014 16:03:54 Buntunub wrote: I certainly have no qualms about including Systemd in the next stable release, and I actually encourage it, so that people will have time to play with it and come to know and possibly even fall in love with it. I seriously do not understand why this needs to be rushed. Systemd is available in the current stable, (see below) and people have had time to play and fall in love with it (or not). So in how many Stable versions of Linux are you saying that it should be available, before those who wish to do so will have had long enough to play with it? Well, that is precisely the question. How many distros are there? How many different ways have people tried to figure out to do things, leaving their results in insufficiently commented code, here and there, all over the source code tree, in different repositories all over the world? How many different algorithms is systemd going to have to fit itself nicely to, before it quits breaking _existing_ infrastructure? What do you think Miles should have done to avoid that all-nighter? (Yes, his example was udev, not systemd, but the problem of hidden things breaking is the same.) Well, the truth about that last question is (Sorry, Miles), you can't avoid those. But overly optimistic thinking on his part doesn't excuse overly optimistic thinking on anyone else's part. Well yes, Murphy's Law always applies, and usually strikes at zero-dark-thirty -- but one can try to limit one's available attack surface :-) Miles -- 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/547114e6.1080...@meetinghouse.net
Re: Why focus on systemd?
In an effort to keep a ration discussion from sliding into a pointless flame-war. On 23/11/14 02:07, Martin Read wrote: On 22/11/14 09:50, lee wrote: Nobody understands udev rules, Challenge accepted. *looks at /etc/udev/rules.d* *looks at /lib/udev/rules.d* I'm honestly baffled that someone who is capable of comfortably using emacs thinks these files are incomprehensible. They appear to be written in a domain-specific declarative language with a fairly straightforward syntax. And easily copied and customised to suit individual needs. Pick any period of *Linux* (!=UNIX) history and it's always been difficult (requires effort and time to learn[*1]). Part of the problem some of us that have been using it for a long time suffer from - is that we've long forgotten what it was like to learn to ride a bike, so it can appear that anything new is relatively harder to learn in comparison. *runs man 7 udev* Yup. Pretty straightforward. Some highly-commented example files would be *nice*, but I don't see anything particularly intimidating in there. Agreed[*2] - but that won't faze the la la la I can't hear you crowd with their pitchforks and fickle sticks from lugging the goal posts of *nobody* understands udev rules in their blind idealistic Gish Gallop[*3] drown out the truth campaign (sigh).[*4] FWIW I've previously posted a simple, step-by-step guide on how to write udev rules to this list - that actually has been used by a 12 year-old to write her own custom udev rule. If one of the Veteran UNIX Administrators can't do it - all that says is that there's a wide range of skill levels that constitute administrator (facepalm). [*1]As does anything build upon the knowledge of previous generations - we live in an era where no one person knows everything required to make something as simple as a pencil. Which IMO is not a good reason to revert to using only things that can be build from a cup of spit and two twigs. [*2]http://www.reactivated.net/writing_udev_rules.html is useful, on my long list of things-to-do (that I'll probably never get around to doing) is to propose (reportbug) that be added to the udev docs in the debian package. [*3]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop [*4]Picturing hunchback trolls infiltating the peasants surrounding the castle of change (and chanting here we go, here we go). Apropos of which I'm old enough to remember the devfs wars (now 'that' was a real war you whipper-snappers!). :) Kind regards -- None so blind as those that will not see ~ John Heywood -- 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/5471194e.7030...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 23/11/14 03:03, Buntunub wrote: I understand your reasons for thinking Systemd is bad for Debian. I do, and I also agree with some of them. However, Debian is composed of a diverse group of people who have every viewpoint under the sun from Systemd is the bane of Linux, to Systemd is the best thing to ever happen to Linux. No matter where you fall in that spectrum though, there is one common denominator, and that is that we all use and love Debian. Let's start from there. Making Systemd default in Jessie I believe runs against the Debian philosophy of conservative approach and release when ready. While I personally disagree with Systemd, I have no problems with it being a part of the Debian family of supported apps. I do feel it is very unwise though to make it the default in Debian because of its monolithic nature and because of the dependency chain problems, which right now at least, make it difficult to run an alternative init system, which limits user choice. This mailing list is about Debian users. Let's stick to talking about issues affecting Debian users. This is my take, and why I oppose the decision to make Systemd the default in the next stable release. I certainly have no qualms about including Systemd in the next stable release, and I actually encourage it, so that people will have time to play with it and come to know and possibly even fall in love with it. I seriously do not understand why this needs to be rushed. Thank you for your, considerate, rational, polite, intelligent, and constructive post - which demonstrates what I regard as the Debian way (a diverse, co-operative, non-hive mind). 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/54711b21.3090...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 23/11/14 08:47, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:43:01 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/11/14 22:14, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:19 +1100 Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote: It lost. Developers are not being forced to do what they don't want. The winner was developers will work it out themselves i.e. Debian won. Another reading being The Developpers won, Debian lost... Only reads that way if you have trouble reading - or simple refuse to acknowledge the view of Debian. The Constitution might need to be rewritten, to support your POW. While Debian always have been a meritocracy, the constitution have its load of weasel words, that implies the opposite. [confused] Where did I say *anything* about the Debian Constitution. A lose-lose situation, in my point of view. Point of view is an apt description (no debian packaging pun intended). What 'you' see depends not only on where you stand, but also what you can stand and understand. Which explains by those with an over-investment in an emotional opinion read into things words and references that do *not* exist in the original material. That's not to say I disagree with your assessment with the Debian Constitution - only that it's not remotely relevant to my comments. Please don't shift the focus, I assume your intentions are best, but - it's disingenuous, divisive, and does you no credit. Please retain focus. I don't see how endless meta-semantic pedantics by Monday-footballers has to do with a vote by Debian developers. What next? Shall we debate gravity or other pointless exercises[*1] (unless the Debian User list has become a school for aspiring sophists)? [*1] Context is everything - and this *is* the Debian User list. Kind regards -- By the time you're thirty you have the face you deserve ~ GBS By the time you're thirty you hold the opinions you deserver -- 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/54711eef.9070...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:29:45PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: OdyX writes: ...please stop. Seriously. Please stop ranting about the ranting. Seriously. It's just as distracting and irritating as the rants themselves. Just filter the rant threads and those who post them. I'd filter all subjects containing the string [Ss]ystemd but there may be things about it that I need to see. Exactly! and there's the trouble. Separating the 'wheat from the chaff' is the issue we'll probably be facing when Jessie is actually released. :( A repeat performance is going to get boring very quickly. -- 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/20141117120657.GH20978@tal
Re: Why focus on systemd?
Le dimanche, 16 novembre 2014, 16.36:42 Peter Nieman a écrit : Preventing the systemd takeover is certainly important, but it won't be enough to reverse the trend, I fear. None of the talking on debian-user about meta, conceptual or generic systemd issues will allow a systemd takeover in Debian; none. NONE. The Debian Technical Committee was asked to resolve a dispute of overlapping jurisdictions by deciding (in agreement with the Debian Constitution) which init system would be default for the Jessie release. It decided to put 'systemd' on the ballot and the outcome of the vote was 'systemd'. The TC included a possibility to override this decision with an exceptional '1:1' majority requirement. The Developers' body which could have overriden this decision, hasn't done so, at all (a GR to do so was not even proposed). That decision of the Debian TC is therefore 'in force' for the whole Debian project. You might very well be unhappy with this situation, the way the decision was taken, the way it wasn't challenged by the DDs, the fact that no conditions were posed to systemd maintainers, or anything else, that's totally fine. Please just be aware that repeating your unhappiness ad nauseam will not change that fact. In fact, I'm quite sure that the 'meta' discussions about systemd on debian-user are seriously annoying to a lot of subscribers and to a lot of developers too. This, because what should be done now is not arguying endlessly, but making Jessie the best Debian release ever (given the TC decision) through making Jessie work as best as possible with systemd as init, through making Jessie work as best as possible with sysvinit as init and doing _actual testing_ of Debian Jessie, in real use-cases. Screaming and whining about supposed issues with Jessie without testing it is unproductive, noisy and unfair to the developers. You might not have noticed, but making points on debian-user against systemd-in-general or systemd-as-adopted-by-Debian is not making a case for a systemd-less Debian (much the contrary), it is not either making a case for a revert of the TC decision (much the contrary). The only way to make a case for a systemd-less Debian is to _do_it_ ! In general, debian-user is not the right venue for complaints about Debian decisions; the continuation of the debian-user hijack by these discussions is a disgrace to this list; please stop. Seriously. OdyX -- 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/3750416.2yWWoOgTss@gyllingar
Re: Why focus on systemd?
OdyX writes: ...please stop. Seriously. Please stop ranting about the ranting. Seriously. It's just as distracting and irritating as the rants themselves. Just filter the rant threads and those who post them. I'd filter all subjects containing the string [Ss]ystemd but there may be things about it that I need to see. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA -- 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/87oas7uhgm@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 11/16/2014 12:33 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: In general, debian-user is not the right venue for complaints about Debian decisions; the continuation of the debian-user hijack by these discussions is a disgrace to this list; please stop. Seriously. OdyX Your continued rants against a topic which obviously is of interest to many Debian users (and therefore on-topic for this list) are a disgrace to this list. Please stop. Seriously. Jerry -- 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/546909d5.9070...@gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 16/11/2014, Peter Nieman gmane-a...@t-online.de wrote: [snip] It's the domination of the desktop environment ideology that's the problem. Many users came to Linux and Debian years ago because they were fed up with Microsoft. And now the same ideology infiltrates their Linux, whether they chose to install a desktop environment or not. Just try a window manager on top of X, quite a different approach, and one that minimises distractions in my opinion. I use IceWM because it is easy to configure. A few applications (surf, xfe, pmount, mpg123, xpdf, OpenOffice installed from tar.gz, r-base/r-devel, gnuplot, texlive) and I'm working fine and listening to the music on my phone through a better sound system. Init agnostic (use of the apt-get option --no-install-recommends ensures that), fast, impressive. You can learn systemd or stay with sysvinit. I might even try upstart for lutz. Jessie is a good place to be. cheers -- Keith Burnett http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/osd.html http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/ -- 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/CAA6tw_Gze0OWRXdOegwHcZt3q13W6HrR68k-F_-8_=i5fga...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 16/11/14 18:33, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: You might very well be unhappy with this situation, the way the decision was taken, the way it wasn't challenged by the DDs, the fact that no conditions were posed to systemd maintainers, or anything else, that's totally fine. Please just be aware that repeating your unhappiness ad nauseam will not change that fact. In fact, I'm quite sure that the 'meta' discussions about systemd on debian-user are seriously annoying to a lot of subscribers and to a lot of developers too. This, because what should be done now is not arguying endlessly, but making Jessie the best Debian release ever (given the TC decision) through making Jessie work as best as possible with systemd as init, through making Jessie work as best as possible with sysvinit as init and doing _actual testing_ of Debian Jessie, in real use-cases. Screaming and whining about supposed issues with Jessie without testing it is unproductive, noisy and unfair to the developers. You might not have noticed, but making points on debian-user against systemd-in-general or systemd-as-adopted-by-Debian is not making a case for a systemd-less Debian (much the contrary), it is not either making a case for a revert of the TC decision (much the contrary). The only way to make a case for a systemd-less Debian is to _do_it_ ! In general, debian-user is not the right venue for complaints about Debian decisions; the continuation of the debian-user hijack by these discussions is a disgrace to this list; please stop. Seriously. My aim was to invite people to think about where Debian is heading, and my message was obviously addressed to people who are able and willing to do so. -- 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/m4b45f$o6k$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Why focus on systemd?
On 16/11/14 21:42, Keith Peter wrote: On 16/11/2014, Peter Nieman gmane-a...@t-online.de wrote: [snip] It's the domination of the desktop environment ideology that's the problem. Many users came to Linux and Debian years ago because they were fed up with Microsoft. And now the same ideology infiltrates their Linux, whether they chose to install a desktop environment or not. Just try a window manager on top of X, quite a different approach, and one that minimises distractions in my opinion. That's what I'm using. And my point is that I'm subjected to the decisions of the Gnome and KDE people regardless. -- 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/m4b4r0$31f$1...@ger.gmane.org
