Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/19/14 14:37, Gevisz wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:53:12 +0400 the the.gu...@mail.ru wrote: On 02/18/14 17:56, Gevisz wrote: On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz gev...@gmail.com wrote: [ snip ] How can you be sure if something is large enough if, as you say below, you do not care about probabilities? By writing correct code? No, by arguing that fixing bugs in a 200K line program is as easy as fixing a bug in 20 10K line programs. It is just not true, just the opposite. SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains about 13 000 lines, systemd — about 200 000 lines. If you take into account the thousands of shell code that SysV and OpenRC need to fill the functionality of systemd, they use even more. Also, again, systemd have a lot of little binaries, many of them optional. The LOC of PID 1 is actually closer to SysV (although still bigger). Even assuming systemd code is as mature as sysvinit or openrc (though I doubt this) you can calculate probabilities of segfaults yourself easily. I don't care about probabilities; If you do not care (= do not now anything) about probabilities (and mathematics, in general), you just unable to understand that debugging a program with 200K lines of code take 20!/(1!)^20 more time than debugging of 20 different programs with 10K lines of code. You can try to calculate that number yourself but I quite sure that if the latter can take, say, 20 days, the former can take millions of years. It is all the probability! Or, to be more precise, combinatorics. My PhD thesis (which I will defend in a few weeks) is in computer science, specifically computational geometry and combinatorics. It is even more shameful for you to not understand such a simple facts from elementary probability theory (which is mostly based on combinatorics). TBH I don't understand your estimate. Where did permutations come from? are you comparing all the different combinations of lines of code? I just wanted to convey that, if an involved program is n times longer, than another one, it does not, in general, true that it will take only n times more time to find a bug. The dependence here would be nonlinear and with much more steep growth than the linear one, just because all the possible ways to go wrong grows proportional to permutations, not necessary of lines but at least of some other units whose number is roughly proportional to the number of lines. As I see it: Suppose we can have b different paths in each unit of code (for 1 unit having 1 input we would get b possible outputs). Suppose we have A different states after executing N units, but we have 1 more unit to execute at the end. Executing the final unit A times with different initial states we get b outcomes for each of the A initial states. Now we have A*b possible final states, so we get b^(n+1) states after executing N+1 units. If there are s mistakes we can make in each unit we will get 2^s paths in each unit. Finally 2^(s*N)I may be glitching though. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTBxE1AAoJEK64IL1uI2haoFMH/Ag/JJEh3OZBUf6lR+bp3iV5 HQOh+V+J2vclDcOqc2AQDEYFIR++3yo1iqlw9vW8pI2wSRvcia2j0fs1M/kamvhH xJC+yaeDQ9dy544PQS/y1vnSxK4nqyTybZ0/yj4liRofkY+4Gyn+hZanPO6R04cn UDXH/K0uvlhSyIaFRkzmCD8wrEH/slPPGtB3+GwpSckM4MUwtNsjLyng78+AhX9j A2m5pKrFVHnE09XqGKm+G4La2LeNy33fOTgfL4O/s8q8xCRkIuf/B2mEO/76eUwn QYjSN77sLtDFfxJSfO46Gch3nA3obcKBVqZkVtqy5Z83m3OjqwKT7xu4yLLHM4Y= =4zVQ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 21/02/2014 09:03, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
Your idea instantly fails as the rc-service author has no idea of what
you defined ${SERVICE} to be and no way to determine what it is now.
Yes, the rc-service author does not have any idea because he is not
requested to.
${SERVICE} obviously comes from `rc-service status ${SERVICE}` .
The result (e.g. tail -n {$LINES} ${SERVICE}.log) is achieved by:
1. putting LINES= in /etc/conf.d/${SERVICE}
2. setting up ${SERVICE}.log with syslog. (or putting LOGFILE=... and
doing `tail -n ${LINES} ${LOGFILE}, or even LAST_LOG_CMD=`mysql -qe
'SELECT ... FROM log.log ORDER BY date DESC LIMIT ${LINES}'`, or
*whatever*)
3. adding this `tail -n ...` or whatever call to the init script .
4. voila.
If you feel I'm again entirely wrong please point out why.
The faults with your comments are many, and I'm not going to detail them
as that's not my job. I'm going to let you figure it out for yourself in
production why your entire approach is wrong, and simply leave you with
this:
You violate DRY.
You expect the sysadmin to know they must make changes in a restart
config file when they tweak the syslogger so that somehow the init
script continues to get it right. Trust me, sysadmins are not going to
remember to do that, because expecting them to is off the wall crazy.
I repeat what I and Canek said earlier:
You've never actually DONE any of this in real life, right?
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Lenovo y510p video drivers
Hi All, I bought a Lenovo y510p stuff which has two video cards, an Intel 4th generation stuff and a NVIDIA GF GT750M SLI. When I start the X -configure the log says that it has not found usable driver, however in my make.conf VIDEO_CARDS=nvidia nv intel nouveau vga The system is base system without ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64 flag. The kernel contains the intel drivers as modules and they are loaded, but the result is the same. I would like to ask what to do in that case? The documentation does not say too much about this situation. On the other hand, it seems, the two video cards are working together because under Win 7. The nvidia driver requires the intel driver to be installed and the driver is able to decide when the nvidia should be used. Sorry, I'm not an expert in video cards and hardwares. Thanks for any help in advance! András -- -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry! - Cromwell
[gentoo-user] Re: RUBY_TARGETS and eselect ruby
Hans de Graaff graaff at gentoo.org writes: Because we haven't gotten around to that yet. Also note that only a few packages currently have ruby21 support, so eselecting it right now is not very useful yet. We should be updating the ruby eselect module in the next week or so. Any news on this? Like Pavel the only related packages are rubygems, rake and friends since it's a pretty minimalistic box serving a Rails app which we are lifting to Ruby 2.1 next week. Support for ruby21 in eselect would be great, thanks a bunch!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
21.02.2014 12:48, Alan McKinnon пишет:
On 21/02/2014 09:03, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
Your idea instantly fails as the rc-service author has no idea of what
you defined ${SERVICE} to be and no way to determine what it is now.
Yes, the rc-service author does not have any idea because he is not
requested to.
${SERVICE} obviously comes from `rc-service status ${SERVICE}` .
The result (e.g. tail -n {$LINES} ${SERVICE}.log) is achieved by:
1. putting LINES= in /etc/conf.d/${SERVICE}
2. setting up ${SERVICE}.log with syslog. (or putting LOGFILE=... and
doing `tail -n ${LINES} ${LOGFILE}, or even LAST_LOG_CMD=`mysql -qe
'SELECT ... FROM log.log ORDER BY date DESC LIMIT ${LINES}'`, or
*whatever*)
3. adding this `tail -n ...` or whatever call to the init script .
4. voila.
If you feel I'm again entirely wrong please point out why.
The faults with your comments are many, and I'm not going to detail them
as that's not my job. I'm going to let you figure it out for yourself in
production why your entire approach is wrong, and simply leave you with
this:
You violate DRY.
For an example showing the general possibility to do this, I don't
violate anything. One could easily grep a syslog config , or do the
opposite (a syslog config generator from service configs), whatever. Of
course I didn't write a complete logging-aware init scripts system
because it's also not my job. But if it were, I'm pretty sure it's
doable under SysV/BSD init in compliance with DRY and ease-of-use for
admins. I'm sorry I couldn't convince you of that.
You expect the sysadmin to know they must make changes in a restart
config file when they tweak the syslogger so that somehow the init
script continues to get it right. Trust me, sysadmins are not going to
remember to do that, because expecting them to is off the wall crazy.
I repeat what I and Canek said earlier:
You've never actually DONE any of this in real life, right?
What exactly?
No, I didn't tweak any init system to print the last N log entries for a
service. No, because I don't need it and never did.
I *did* set up logging to a remote DB on SunOS and FreeBSD. But actually
you're digressing and just going personal, because the question wasn't
*how to setup logging* but *the possibility* of such a modification that
*prints the last N log entries* in the service status cmd.
--
Regards,
Yuri K. Shatroff
Re: [gentoo-user] Lenovo y510p video drivers
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:32:41 +0100, András Csányi wrote: VIDEO_CARDS=nvidia nv intel nouveau vga Pick one of nvidia, nv or nouveau, preferably not nv. You should also add vesa to the list, which gets most cards working in a basic way. -- Neil Bothwick When you choke a smurf, what color does it turn? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fwd:How about the gentoo server or cluster in production environment?
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:41:03 +0100 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:52:07PM +0400, Andrew Savchenko wrote: And this point is one of the highest security benefits in real world: one have non-standard binaries, not available in the wild. Most exploits will fail on such binaries even if vulnerability is still there. While excluding few security issues by compiling less code is possible, believing that non-standard binaries (in the sense of compiled for with local compilation flags) gives more security is a dangerous dream. Any decent security setup contains multiple layers of protection. Use of non-standard binaries, algorithms or implementations is just one of them and it is the simplest math to prove that security is _improved_ this way. Nobody says that system became _acceptably_ secure _only_ by using this techniques. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko pgpRPR7k1tXEj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fwd:How about the gentoo server or cluster in production environment?
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:59:59 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: On 20/02/2014 22:41, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:52:07PM +0400, Andrew Savchenko wrote: And this point is one of the highest security benefits in real world: one have non-standard binaries, not available in the wild. Most exploits will fail on such binaries even if vulnerability is still there. While excluding few security issues by compiling less code is possible, believing that non-standard binaries (in the sense of compiled for with local compilation flags) gives more security is a dangerous dream. +1 non-standard binaries is really just a special form of security by obscurity. Or alternatively a special form of no-one will eva figure out my l33t skillz! Mwahahaha! Exactly. This is security trough obscurity. I never claimed this is an ultimate or a sufficient way to protect a system. But this is just a single of many multiple layers which can be used to provide acceptable security level. Which is a very poor stance to take. The total amount of code not compiled by setting some USE flags off is on the whole not likely to be very much, and hoping with finger crossed that the next weakness in a package will just happen to fall within a code path that got left out by USE flags is a fools dream. You mare compare binary sizes for e.g. openldap (and all its libraries) with minimal and full (USE=-minimal *) setup. Quite impressive, not to count all external so libraries involved. I'm glad you mentioned this Andrew, because the internets are full of stupid advice like this non-standard binary nonsense. Are you considering Bruce Schneier's advice as a stupid nonsense? In his Applied cryptography he recommended one of the ways to straighten a system: to use not so frequently used algorithms instead of selected standards because less frequently used algorithms has no better math but are less targeted, have less specialized hardware built to crack them and so on. Yes, the arguments at face value are difficult to refute with hard facts, but those that do not known it is stupid are easily led into a sense of false security, doesn't matter how many disclaimers are tagged on the end. I reckon it's the duty of all knowledgeable sysadmins to stamp out this crap HARD every time it raises it's head. To the user who brought it up - this might seem overly harsh but I've yet to find a better method that actually works and gets through to people. I never talked about a sense of security just because system has non-standard binaries. I talked about high variance which brings a _bit_ more security. And I'm talking not from some theorizing, but from practical experience on both ends (data protection and legitimate system forensics). Have you ever considered how systems became broken in the wild? The most common way (in numbers of hosts, not significance) are automated robots and botnets. They just scan the net, try to bruteforce any login service they found and try to apply any exploit appropriate from their database. If one have a widely used and improperly configured (or not timely updated) setup, it will be hacked this way. The key point of any attack is *cost*, is *money* one needs to spend for an attack. Automated attacks are cheap and such _simple and cheap_ measures as obscured binaries and non-standard (e.g. ssh) ports will stop most of these attacks. This way it will cost _more_ for the attacker to break into protected system and with raise of an attack cost system protection level also rises. Of course, obfuscation is _not_ sufficient for system protection. This is just one small step forward. I don't want to discuss full scope of server protection issues, because this is far out of the topic of this discussion and because measures needed are task- dependent. However I want to notice one critical security issue quite common for production servers: an old software. It doesn't matter how many protection layers system have, how skilled person configured it was. When software is old it is quite trivial to look up for CVEs and break the system. Quite practical encounter from my own experience: I was asked to legitimately obtain root on the box (admin forgot password, reboot (with init=/bin/bash) was not an option and root access was needed for reconfiguration); a box was a year old RHEL with SELinux enforced. Third kernel exploit worked perfectly (I just found them on the net, not bothered to code myself). Such trivia with Gentoo and its custom binaries is not possible. And Gentoo is quite good with recent software updates (RH sometimes is too slow with critical kernel/libc issues). Old software is evil. It doesn't matter how good and tested it _was_. Variety and diversity are quite important for real word systems protection. Of course, it is possible to break _any_ box on the Earth, the only question is how high the cost will be. My point is that Gentoo provides native
[gentoo-user] looking a way to create a flash drive from scratch
Hi, I need to create a bootable flash stick, preferably using already working Gentoo system (or at least most of it), which was tailored for an embedded system. Already googled around, but I would like to know if anyone has already succeeded on this. Thanks Francisco
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-20 9:39 PM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: Indeed, Greg doesn't work for Red Hat. Prior to working for LF, however, he worked for Novell, another for-profit Linux company. Good god, is that the best you can do? What is your aversion to 'profit', anyway? You do realize that *everyone* operates under the profit motive, right? EVERYONE. All day. Every day, in everything that they do. It may not always be a *financial* profit motive, but in many or even most cases it ultimately is.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 02/21/2014 07:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2014-02-20 9:39 PM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: Indeed, Greg doesn't work for Red Hat. Prior to working for LF, however, he worked for Novell, another for-profit Linux company. Good god, is that the best you can do? What is your aversion to 'profit', anyway? You do realize that *everyone* operates under the profit motive, right? EVERYONE. All day. Every day, in everything that they do. It may not always be a *financial* profit motive, but in many or even most cases it ultimately is. This discussion has nothing to do with me.
Re: [gentoo-user] looking a way to create a flash drive from scratch
Gentoo minimal and unetbootin: http://programminglinuxblog.blogspot.ca/2011/02/gentoo-on-usb-stick.html#!/2011/02/gentoo-on-usb-stick.html
Re: [gentoo-user] looking a way to create a flash drive from scratch
On 02/21/2014 01:13 PM, Francisco Ares wrote: Hi, I need to create a bootable flash stick, preferably using already working Gentoo system (or at least most of it), which was tailored for an embedded system. Already googled around, but I would like to know if anyone has already succeeded on this. Thanks Francisco what I do is this: 1. make your usb stick an PV of your existing LVM volumegroup 2. create a small boot LV 3. install grub2 into the boot LV and onto the boot sector of the usb stick 4. insert stick into live running system 5. lvm convert running system LV into a mirror with one part of the mirror on the stick. if it's already a mirror make it a 3way etc 6. when done, split the mirror 7. rename the usb into a different volumegroup, called backup for example, and rename the LV to something sensible 8. configure grub on the usb to boot gentoo from the volume group backup, root partition 9. eject the usb stick and plug into your other device 10. boot from the usb stick 11. repeat the mirror steps this time going onto the SD/hard drive of the new device LVM ftw
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-21 8:34 AM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: On 02/21/2014 07:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2014-02-20 9:39 PM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: Indeed, Greg doesn't work for Red Hat. Prior to working for LF, however, he worked for Novell, another for-profit Linux company. Good god, is that the best you can do? What is your aversion to 'profit', anyway? You do realize that *everyone* operates under the profit motive, right? EVERYONE. All day. Every day, in everything that they do. It may not always be a *financial* profit motive, but in many or even most cases it ultimately is. This discussion has nothing to do with me. So stop making comments in this thread. Or are you suggesting that I mis-attributed that post (I just dbl-checked and I didn't)?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-20 7:08 PM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: By striking the weakest part of the stack (sysv probably*did* need a good replacement, but not one as ambitious as systemd) and digging down into the kernel level (kdbus), Red Hat devs will now have a very influential role in the FOSS world. This will in turn generate interest (and thus profit) in Red Hat. I sure wish someone who has Linus' ear would ask him to post a blog (or even lkml post) dissecting this entire systemd question. Or, if anyone on here is a member of the lkml and is brave enough, post a question there asking for opinions from Linus and any other kernel dev who wishes to rant about it... As it stands now, for me, I don't see a real problem anymore...
Re: [gentoo-user] Fwd: How about the gentoo server or cluster in production environment?
On 2014-02-20 8:03 PM, Facundo Curti facu.cu...@gmail.com wrote: Fsacundo impolitely omitted attribution, so I have to add it back... I said: That is such total FUD I just can't even say anything else about it without using some unsavory words. You no need to be disrespectfull... How was my comment disrespectful? It just was my opinion, and everybody are here to learn... But no one is going to learn (anything worthwhile) by spreading FUD. If you are going to voice a strong opinion, be prepared to have it challenged, especially when it is so clearly and obviously wrong. Everybody say good points. I think it is just a matter of taste. Lol! Wrong. Making a claim that gentoo cannot be updated while maintaining its server operations is just so wrong it is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with 'taste'. If you don't want people to say that some claim you make is ridiculously false, stop making ridiculously false claims. Simple.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 02/21/2014 07:43 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2014-02-21 8:34 AM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: On 02/21/2014 07:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2014-02-20 9:39 PM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: Indeed, Greg doesn't work for Red Hat. Prior to working for LF, however, he worked for Novell, another for-profit Linux company. Good god, is that the best you can do? What is your aversion to 'profit', anyway? You do realize that *everyone* operates under the profit motive, right? EVERYONE. All day. Every day, in everything that they do. It may not always be a *financial* profit motive, but in many or even most cases it ultimately is. This discussion has nothing to do with me. So stop making comments in this thread. Or are you suggesting that I mis-attributed that post (I just dbl-checked and I didn't)? I certainly wrote what you quoted, but I'm not taking the bait to devolve this already heated discussion into personal attacks. If you think all profit is the same, then we are talking on two different wavelengths.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-20 10:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: Sorry, Canek, no offense was intended, but if you go back and re-read your 'extremely overly enthusiastic' post (this plus the content is why I referred to it as a 'rant'), while I agree with most everything you said, your primary point - that it should be the people who *don't* want systemd doing all of the work - was backwards, and that was what I wanted to point out. I'm afraid this is the part that's backwards. You are wrong. So, please, don't take it as an insult. In fact you have done a very good job of patiently spelling out the advantages of systemd, to the point I'm no longer afraid of it taking over and devouring the linux world. If systemd truly is, as you say taking over and devouring the linux world *I* never said that. Others have though, and some still apparently believe this to be the case. Admittedly it is those voices that prompted me to start this thread. I wanted to get opinions from other list members about how systemd is/will/should impact the gentoo community, and I'm glad I did. The result is that I now no longer believe most of the negatives being spread about systemd, and no longer fear that it is 'taking over and devouring the linux world'. such that the majority of distro maintainers are individually choosing to use a feature or two from it, then yes, it definitely is the job of people who want to opt out of it to do the work. You would be right IF - and I repeat IF - it weren't for the little inconvenient fact that OpenRC, not systemd, is the default init system in gentoo, now, and thankfully for the foreseeable future. I say thankfully not because I fear systemd, but because I would much prefer to let systemd mature with others using it to flesh out any bugs or other problems/issues (technical *and* political). As long as OpenRC is the default init system in Gentoo, it is on those who want something *other* than OpenRC (ie, systemd) to do the work of implementing it. Why is it so difficult to see that? Even Canek already acknowledged the correctness of this position. Bottom line: since Gentoo's default and primary init system is (and hopefully will be for a very long time) OpenRC, it is on the systemd folks to do the work to get systemd fully supported. systemd IS supported and working. The problem arises when there are people that want to push for a system with no systemd whatsoever and act like it's the systemd maintainer's job to make that happen. Thankfully there is no problem then, since no one is pushing for 'a system with no systemd whatsoever', beyond what exists already. All I am interested in is keeping the systemd proponents in their place. As the 'new kid on the block', when 'invading' (for lack of a better term) a new distro (in this case, gentoo), it is *on them* to provide the methods and means for people interested in trying/using systemd on said distro, but most importantly to do so *without* impacting existing users who want to continue using the *existing*, *default* init system for their distro. Are you seriously disagreeing with this position?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-21 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: If you think all profit is the same, then we are talking on two different wavelengths. I didn't say that. I said that *everyone* operates under the profit motive.
[gentoo-user] --jobs is ignored for unmerging?
I recently needed to unmerge Netbeans and KDE from a machine. So removed the top-level packages of those, and then ran: emerge -a --depclean --jobs 20 However, --jobs is being ignored. So I'm sitting there, watching hundreds of packages being unmerged one by one, taking a long time :-/ Is this normal? Shouldn't the --jobs option result in emerge unmerging multiple packages at the same time?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fwd:How about the gentoo server or cluster in production environment?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alan McKinnon: On 20/02/2014 22:41, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:52:07PM +0400, Andrew Savchenko wrote: And this point is one of the highest security benefits in real world: one have non-standard binaries, not available in the wild. Most exploits will fail on such binaries even if vulnerability is still there. While excluding few security issues by compiling less code is possible, believing that non-standard binaries (in the sense of compiled for with local compilation flags) gives more security is a dangerous dream. +1 non-standard binaries is really just a special form of security by obscurity. So you are saying compiling a minimal kernel to minimize exposure to subsystem bugs is only obscurity? (I really wonder what Greg would say to this) The argument that this particular setup may be less tested is a valid one. But less tested also means less commonly known exploits and testing these setups is a win-win for users and upstream. Whether you like it or not... whenever you install software on a server, you become a tester at the same point. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTB19lAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzxR0H/1sz9v/yvAS/EvdCUgo6MBYW 0+A1yJPNfDK3eNMtcipcfBLIs2PbxjamtXKI/Ysjbog3oJxrt1cczDlLByGgG2kW PM0buUKsId6eLM/X3X9UJ06ZCVIK4JN4Baf9OAaBdJrquwL1Ja7rfzjTbC7vEOWj 9H0UqHuVL6qgvUvyVodMJWVXjc8Deda5w+Z9bWAbeBncf/pDukOO0JWr/6/wUsNe fhdcDqijB+qZ3auHA7YYwpwIYTBIGdlHRUwqm9zVDbSnOQm79FLE/3+dsaAjTqv/ NmXvsAmggHb1Q6FpMwZmaXHCtTMN67zWRaE+Oi36p7p7gZK/1DyW8lwgqBsq5/M= =ZQID -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2014-02-20 10:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: So, please, don't take it as an insult. In fact you have done a very good job of patiently spelling out the advantages of systemd, to the point I'm no longer afraid of it taking over and devouring the linux world. If systemd truly is, as you say taking over and devouring the linux world *I* never said that. Others have though, and some still apparently believe this to be the case. Admittedly it is those voices that prompted me to start this thread. I wanted to get opinions from other list members about how systemd is/will/should impact the gentoo community, and I'm glad I did. The result is that I now no longer believe most of the negatives being spread about systemd, and no longer fear that it is 'taking over and devouring the linux world'. That's a hypothetical. I'm pointing out that, whatever the situation is, the reasoning and its justification is backwards. Hence the IF. It is one thing entirely to say you don't like some software, and another thing entirely to obligate everyone else in the world to never depend on it. Your preference of uclibc doesn't obligate every C project in the world to disavow glibc. Your preference of firefox doesn't obligate every desktop environment in the world to disavow chromium. Your preference of openrc doesn't obligate every package maintainer in the world to disavow systemd. Hence the general case above. If you want to use foo without using bar, but the upstream and package maintainers of foo want to use bar, then it's _your_ responsibility to make foo work without bar. PERIOD. You were making it sound like it's the responsibility of the developers of bar to package versions of foo that don't depend on bar. This is madness. Thankfully there is no problem then, since no one is pushing for 'a system with no systemd whatsoever', beyond what exists already. We seem to be reading different mailing lists. The same tinfoilers have been practically whining for this like it's systemd's fault. -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
Re: [gentoo-user] looking a way to create a flash drive from scratch
Thanks, gonna try it Francisco 2014-02-21 10:36 GMT-03:00 thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net: On 02/21/2014 01:13 PM, Francisco Ares wrote: Hi, I need to create a bootable flash stick, preferably using already working Gentoo system (or at least most of it), which was tailored for an embedded system. Already googled around, but I would like to know if anyone has already succeeded on this. Thanks Francisco what I do is this: 1. make your usb stick an PV of your existing LVM volumegroup 2. create a small boot LV 3. install grub2 into the boot LV and onto the boot sector of the usb stick 4. insert stick into live running system 5. lvm convert running system LV into a mirror with one part of the mirror on the stick. if it's already a mirror make it a 3way etc 6. when done, split the mirror 7. rename the usb into a different volumegroup, called backup for example, and rename the LV to something sensible 8. configure grub on the usb to boot gentoo from the volume group backup, root partition 9. eject the usb stick and plug into your other device 10. boot from the usb stick 11. repeat the mirror steps this time going onto the SD/hard drive of the new device LVM ftw
Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-20 4:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: Thinking about this more, since apparently using a separate profile may just be 'overkill', how about something simpler, like, for example, using eselect... Something like: # eselect init list Available init systems: [1] OpenRC * [2] systemd [3] runit (whatever choices are supported). the switching requires reemerging things because you need to set some USE flags and quit others. That's the difficult (which is not, really) part; if you set the USE flags yourself or via a profile, or an eselect module, I don't think the difference matters atall. Ok, so, since it really is so simple, wouldn't it be easier to implement this as an eselect module then, as opposed to creating a bunch of separate profiles? (NOTE: to those who might argue it is so trivial that even adding an eselect module is overkill, I would respond: We have eselect modules for changing active profiles and for switching active kernels, and as far as I know, all those do is manage a symlink (/etc/portage/make.profile for the active profile, and /usr/src/linux).) Then, if/when a user attempted to switch, eselect could simply spit out a warning message about what precisely would be required to complete the switch (and this message could be kept updated if/when these requirements change), including scary warnings about breakage if they fail to complete the steps necessary, then prompt them for confirmation (default [n], so an explicit [y] required to execute the change)? I'd also suggest throwing in a test for current running kernel config, to make sure it fully supports booting with systemd, and maybe a new emerge command that can also be maintained to make sure that *all* necessary packages are rebuilt? I know, I know, talk is cheap, but again, if systemd proponents want systemd on gentoo to ever become a reasonably simple option (or even eventually become the new default), I think it is necessary for these tools to be built anyway as part of the vetting process, and ultimately to provide as many (automated) safeguards as possible to keep new and even existing gentoo users from shooting themselves in the foot when installing it. So, the reason I'm explicitly asking is I'd really like for this thread to result in a formal feature request to properly shepherd the addition of systemd as an optional init system for gentoo, including managing the process of switching to it (and back again if desired). Thanks to all who participated in this thread...
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-21 9:28 AM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote: It is one thing entirely to say you don't like some software, and another thing entirely to obligate everyone else in the world to never depend on it. All myself and others have been insisting on is that systemd proponents be prevented from unilaterally creating some kind of dependenc[y][ies] whereby, through that backdoor, they create a situation where the *current* *default* init system must be switched. Your preference of uclibc doesn't obligate every C project in the world to disavow glibc. Your preference of firefox doesn't obligate every desktop environment in the world to disavow chromium. And your preference for systemd doesn't obligate your distro of choice to change to it as the *default* init system. Your preference of openrc doesn't obligate every package maintainer in the world to disavow systemd. No one is asking for that. Again, we are just insisting that systemd proponents be prevented from forcing gentoo into a situation where we are *forced* to switch to systemd for the *default* init system. Hence the general case above. If you want to use foo without using bar, but the upstream and package maintainers of foo want to use bar, then it's _your_ responsibility to make foo work without bar. PERIOD. I agree... so, if *you* want to use systemd, it is *your* reponsibility to make systemd work without impacting existing gentoo users *or* the fact that gentoo has selected OpenRC as it's default init system. You were making it sound like it's the responsibility of the developers of bar to package versions of foo that don't depend on bar. This is madness. Nope, and you are missing the point. This isn't about individual packages. It is about one of the choices that *Distro's* must make - in this case, regarding something very significant (the choice of what to use as the default init system). We, again, are simply insisting that it is the responsibility of the developers of systemd to *not* create situations where they *force* other distro's into *impossible* *situations* where they are *forced* to switch their init systems or have basic system packages stop working. The best way for gentoo, as a distro, to protect its users and it's ecosystem, is to provide a sane, managed approach for systemd proponents to get systemd added to gentoo as a formally supported *optional* init system. Then, and only then, can it be judged on its *merits*, and then and *only* then should it (imnsho) ever be considered as a potential candidate for being made a new *default*.
[gentoo-user] Re: --jobs is ignored for unmerging?
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:14:00 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com wrote: I recently needed to unmerge Netbeans and KDE from a machine. So removed the top-level packages of those, and then ran: emerge -a --depclean --jobs 20 However, --jobs is being ignored. So I'm sitting there, watching hundreds of packages being unmerged one by one, taking a long time :-/ Is this normal? Shouldn't the --jobs option result in emerge unmerging multiple packages at the same time? From emerge(1)[1]: -j [JOBS], --jobs[=JOBS] Specifies the number of packages to build simultaneously. (...) In the past, unmerging was almost entirely IO bound, and running several in parallel would have (at best) no significant speedup. I suspect the (fairly recent) preserve-libs feature and detection of unmodified configuration files introduced some cpu-intensive parts, which might be parallelizeable to some extent if you sacrifice some of the recoverability of an aborted unmerge. If you can benchmark low IO utilization during unmerges, I suggest you open a feature request bug on bugs.gentoo.org requesting parallel unmerge. :-) In the mean time, you might be able to speed the process up somewhat by setting FEATURES=-merge-sync in the environment when you do unmerges. (see make.conf(5)[2]) 1: https://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/doc/man/emerge.1.html 2: https://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/doc/man/make.conf.5.html -- eroen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:02:31 -0500 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2014-02-20 10:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: Sorry, Canek, no offense was intended, but if you go back and re-read your 'extremely overly enthusiastic' post (this plus the content is why I referred to it as a 'rant'), while I agree with most everything you said, your primary point - that it should be the people who *don't* want systemd doing all of the work - was backwards, and that was what I wanted to point out. I'm afraid this is the part that's backwards. You are wrong. So, please, don't take it as an insult. In fact you have done a very good job of patiently spelling out the advantages of systemd, to the point I'm no longer afraid of it taking over and devouring the linux world. If systemd truly is, as you say taking over and devouring the linux world *I* never said that. Others have though, and some still apparently believe this to be the case. Admittedly it is those voices that prompted me to start this thread. Do you hear voices? :-) I wanted to get opinions from other list members about how systemd is/will/should impact the gentoo community, and I'm glad I did. The result is that I now no longer believe most of the negatives being spread about systemd, and no longer fear that it is 'taking over and devouring the linux world'. such that the majority of distro maintainers are individually choosing to use a feature or two from it, then yes, it definitely is the job of people who want to opt out of it to do the work. You would be right IF - and I repeat IF - it weren't for the little inconvenient fact that OpenRC, not systemd, is the default init system in gentoo, now, and thankfully for the foreseeable future. I say thankfully not because I fear systemd, but because I would much prefer to let systemd mature with others using it to flesh out any bugs or other problems/issues (technical *and* political). As long as OpenRC is the default init system in Gentoo, it is on those who want something *other* than OpenRC (ie, systemd) to do the work of implementing it. Why is it so difficult to see that? Even Canek already acknowledged the correctness of this position. Bottom line: since Gentoo's default and primary init system is (and hopefully will be for a very long time) OpenRC, it is on the systemd folks to do the work to get systemd fully supported. systemd IS supported and working. The problem arises when there are people that want to push for a system with no systemd whatsoever and act like it's the systemd maintainer's job to make that happen. Thankfully there is no problem then, since no one is pushing for 'a system with no systemd whatsoever', beyond what exists already. All I am interested in is keeping the systemd proponents in their place. As the 'new kid on the block', when 'invading' (for lack of a better term) a new distro (in this case, gentoo), it is *on them* to provide the methods and means for people interested in trying/using systemd on said distro, but most importantly to do so *without* impacting existing users who want to continue using the *existing*, *default* init system for their distro. Are you seriously disagreeing with this position?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:03:47 -0500 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2014-02-21 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: If you think all profit is the same, then we are talking on two different wavelengths. I didn't say that. I said that *everyone* operates under the profit motive. And that is simply not true.
OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-21 10:28 AM, Gevisz gev...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:03:47 -0500 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2014-02-21 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: If you think all profit is the same, then we are talking on two different wavelengths. I didn't say that. I said that *everyone* operates under the profit motive. And that is simply not true. Yes, it is, but you may be confused about the meaning of 'profit'. Even someone who volunteers in the local soup kitchen feeding the homeless is doing so under the profit motive. The things is, the 'profit' involved (may) only involve(s) a 'warm fuzzy good feeling'. If you read my previous words, I said it wasn't always (though I think it is usually) some kind of 'financial' profit.
[gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:02:31 -0500 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: As long as OpenRC is the default init system in Gentoo, it is on those who want something *other* than OpenRC (ie, systemd) to do the work of implementing it. It's the job of whoever wants any init system to work to make it work, isn't it? There's no magic that makes the default work without it being someone's job to make it work. No matter what the default is, for any init system to work, there has to be a group of people committed to making it work. There are such groups for OpenRC and systemd within Gentoo. And since Gentoo is about choice, each group bears the burden of doing whatever is reasonable to make sure it doesn't interfere with users' ability to run whichever system they want. Reaching a consensus about whatever is reasonable isn't always a pretty process, but they have to do it anyway. I'm an OpenRC user, and I intend to remain one, but I wouldn't mind if Gentoo had no default init system and the user would have to choose one at install time via a profile choice, eselect, or just a bunch of USE flags, as long as the choices are well documented.
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Tanstaafl: On 2014-02-21 10:28 AM, Gevisz gev...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:03:47 -0500 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2014-02-21 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: If you think all profit is the same, then we are talking on two different wavelengths. I didn't say that. I said that *everyone* operates under the profit motive. And that is simply not true. Yes, it is, but you may be confused about the meaning of 'profit'. Even someone who volunteers in the local soup kitchen feeding the homeless is doing so under the profit motive. The things is, the 'profit' involved (may) only involve(s) a 'warm fuzzy good feeling'. If you read my previous words, I said it wasn't always (though I think it is usually) some kind of 'financial' profit. You didn't say it, but it feels like you are talking about personal profit. If not, then your definition of profit is so broad, that it is almost meaningless. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTB32KAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzvssIALcVgrXn/XGTx5ZmXJjuUpIq eN6m6pBQ8b8oO5ujZpx9/l2rMt5zNzwaLpHhF5UEZiZXEEqt9+NSOP62vEuGHn2y Xk5JUDNngIuQaz4geKJXs9YcyA2ZV1MFhZYaxDBOq4DZ4+j75e0FiHuh3jGHfr1+ qUkZWxyWAxoIGb3CUWTedgpr6HqzMJWycL8BDutItfp7dpCobGoY2DSRKX3iSH73 1jtfOx+Ec2QScAmy+fi7sVN9yp5sSSlM4YVmzS5nSw2zemsYVmfqhrTNdPAcy2QE k1xlalMzoIY2EGi68ThjRniXrAQoH2R7kfQsavFSVfratbjjuvdDHxa4sNnbjAE= =V8cT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-user] Re: Lenovo y510p video drivers
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:32:41 +0100 András Csányi sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu wrote: I bought a Lenovo y510p stuff which has two video cards, an Intel 4th generation stuff and a NVIDIA GF GT750M SLI. When I start the X -configure the log says that it has not found usable driver, however in my make.conf VIDEO_CARDS=nvidia nv intel nouveau vga The system is base system without ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64 flag. The kernel contains the intel drivers as modules and they are loaded, but the result is the same. I would like to ask what to do in that case? I can't help much, but I guess something is better than nothing. I have a y510p with a single 750M, but I haven't looked into making the NVidia card work, let alone being able to switch between it and intel. The intel works for me with VIDEO_CARDS=intel i965 v4l vesa I don't know if i965 is necessary, but I see this in xorg's log: (II) intel(0): [DRI2] DRI driver: i965 (II) AIGLX: Loaded and initialized i965 Making the NVidia card work is still on the back burner for me; eventually I'll get to it and post here about it. In the meantime, please do post anything you're able to find out.
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-21 11:23 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Even someone who volunteers in the local soup kitchen feeding the homeless is doing so under the profit motive. The things is, the 'profit' involved (may) only involve(s) a 'warm fuzzy good feeling'. If you read my previous words, I said it wasn't always (though I think it is usually) some kind of 'financial' profit. You didn't say it, but it feels like you are talking about personal profit. If not, then your definition of profit is so broad, that it is almost meaningless. Not at all. The fact is, there are many different ways someone can 'profit'. Another fact is, there has been a concerted effort by some people to poison the meaning, twisting the meaning of financial profit into being something bad, as opposed to what it really is - a very *good* thing (it is a good thing, without it you would DIE). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profit?sourceid=mozilla Take your pick... they are all valid with respect to my comments, although the one that subtley attempts to create a negative meaning 'to take advantage: to profit from the WEAKNESS of others' bugs me no end... People can engage in good (ethical, honest, etc) or bad (unethical, dishonest, etc) behavior in their pursuit of profit, but it is the *behavior* (ethical/honest or unethical/dishonest) that is good or bad, not the result (profit).
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Tanstaafl: On 2014-02-21 11:23 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Even someone who volunteers in the local soup kitchen feeding the homeless is doing so under the profit motive. The things is, the 'profit' involved (may) only involve(s) a 'warm fuzzy good feeling'. If you read my previous words, I said it wasn't always (though I think it is usually) some kind of 'financial' profit. You didn't say it, but it feels like you are talking about personal profit. If not, then your definition of profit is so broad, that it is almost meaningless. Not at all. The fact is, there are many different ways someone can 'profit'. Another fact is, there has been a concerted effort by some people to poison the meaning, twisting the meaning of financial profit into being something bad, as opposed to what it really is - a very *good* thing (it is a good thing, without it you would DIE). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profit?sourceid=mozilla Take your pick... they are all valid with respect to my comments, although the one that subtley attempts to create a negative meaning 'to take advantage: to profit from the WEAKNESS of others' bugs me no end... People can engage in good (ethical, honest, etc) or bad (unethical, dishonest, etc) behavior in their pursuit of profit, but it is the *behavior* (ethical/honest or unethical/dishonest) that is good or bad, not the result (profit). Then you ignore self-destructive behaviour which is a common thing in this world. It can even be intentional, causing no emotional, financial, social or intellectual profit. Maybe you have never met such a person or have never been in such an environment. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTB4oUAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzKwkH/jZMgmx20pvKBJBSHBzVgzYn GCEo4y6OVLKR4MkOMFPbgDh0OiPyLAGwj9A2QJmstTO2UN9LVwdkZLZIT1V4/kK9 3UGoxz5Q/vgLawnJxKesBmq0Qq1acwaEXojT/tngBpLStYvOcNU3Mq4kDlzAcOJ3 tDVoUpxV7fvsAjJZ7hd4LXVWN3vYC/8AYnAfO6K9Cb+VlGIkGDZ6bYDs0k8Wflxn jdEYdsh0k1Bbr5aDZGXRO9pZl7scLRr8SJha0DJwIhc5ZuazyXrX9R8SNw+QSjN8 NiGUIRWMjvwKuziFqRWCGyOJVpbyoaJkg1fxcOHlWvOyHHcOM9TSHHhhGL7Bg3E= =U4Qh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 02/20/2014 08:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: Thinking about this more, since apparently using a separate profile may just be 'overkill', how about something simpler, like, for example, using eselect... Something like: # eselect init list Available init systems: [1] OpenRC * [2] systemd [3] runit (whatever choices are supported). +1 from here Personally i'm most likely to stay with openRC, because the switch is non-trivial and have no faith in the xinetd-style socket arbitrator. but would eselect be able to script the following: .. new kernel coptions .. new grub2 command line .. install dbus (use=-systemd) _then_ systemd .. would be nice to use an import for localed and hostnamed and timedated .. importing openrc services and runlevels to targets .. pamd logind entires .. syslogd changes to accomodate systemd .. setting systemd to log to syslog to make transitions smoother (as logs are lost on reboot by default) and then the reverse for 'undo' ?
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-21 12:17 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Then you ignore self-destructive behaviour which is a common thing in this world. It can even be intentional, causing no emotional, financial, social or intellectual profit. Maybe you have never met such a person or have never been in such an environment. You are confusing 'intent' with 'result'. Even self-destructive behavior is in the vast majority of cases engaged in with the *intention* of profit. Best example I can think of would be a drug addict/alcoholic. When they use/drink, they 'profit' in that the feel better (albeit temporarily), regardless of the ultimate result.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-21 12:33 PM, thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote: On 02/20/2014 08:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: Thinking about this more, since apparently using a separate profile may just be 'overkill', how about something simpler, like, for example, using eselect... Something like: # eselect init list Available init systems: [1] OpenRC * [2] systemd [3] runit (whatever choices are supported). +1 from here Personally i'm most likely to stay with openRC, because the switch is non-trivial and have no faith in the xinetd-style socket arbitrator. but would eselect be able to script the following: .. new kernel coptions .. new grub2 command line .. install dbus (use=-systemd)_then_ systemd .. would be nice to use an import for localed and hostnamed and timedated .. importing openrc services and runlevels to targets .. pamd logind entires .. syslogd changes to accomodate systemd .. setting systemd to log to syslog to make transitions smoother (as logs are lost on reboot by default) and then the reverse for 'undo' ? Well, there are two aspects to consider: new install (where most of the above are not an issue), and switching back and forth. Only a dev can answer your questions with respect to the latter. Everything Canek and others were saying led me to believe it was more trivial/less work than your questions suggest, so I'll just have to leave the answers to those who know so much more than I...
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Tanstaafl: On 2014-02-21 12:17 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Then you ignore self-destructive behaviour which is a common thing in this world. It can even be intentional, causing no emotional, financial, social or intellectual profit. Maybe you have never met such a person or have never been in such an environment. You are confusing 'intent' with 'result'. No. You are confusing yourself with the rest of the world. Even self-destructive behavior is in the vast majority of cases engaged in with the *intention* of profit. Best example I can think of would be a drug addict/alcoholic. When they use/drink, they 'profit' in that the feel better (albeit temporarily), regardless of the ultimate result. I wasn't really talking about drug addicts. If you are interested in real self-destructive behaviour, talk to someone who has worked in an asylum which is only one interesting environment that can make you think very different about people. There are even people who are not driven by anything, not even self-destruction. Pure apathy. Another interesting thing... talk to a trial lawyer who has been in that business for 10+ years. I really doubt that many of those will support your profit intention concept. Most of the time it's about short-cut reactions that are merely following instincts or emotional impulses. Strong emotions can make someone lose control and do all sorts of weird things without any hope or intention of improving/gaining anything for living it out. It's chemistry, it changes your consciousness. Profit is a bit more complex and requires a minimum amount of reflection, even if it is subconscious, short sighted and follows false assumptions. So these are just 3 points why your generalization does not work, like most of those all people... phrases. Unless you hack on the definition until it suits your interpretation, like redefining profit intention to intention. This reminds me of the user in computer science papers. Well, which one. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTB6qKAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzD5MH/3qVBSactWRWng+x1bT29eP/ Vsd3pSdP5GJ5JkH8Vj2LAhRJy9feRselI/TnZuXOOT+gTzAT+ip1fgqmIHTkaLEx Z1a4L5WXEQxTq9aSoaBFzxstont0zb6LWHfW+c8H+V6UTXPUv6ZdGqP+PlLMLpYO az0KiB09PMa/a3LOzPjhACQ6s1aRo5d4mUqOG91rxh3bOljt6WlMJ61ZEATQGwZt iZJff4sO0qG9p6YeoZED0ep6QvH4UGkfl3yboiVf08uf9mbGSTnOffe5GSJqeBKo 9uGK/tJJ4vkYqcEG60pZaqBuIguobzh84rwWg8DGs++Nv9dWbXi7Focpdse/OaU= =8l+x -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 2014-02-21 2:35 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Tanstaafl: On 2014-02-21 12:17 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Then you ignore self-destructive behaviour which is a common thing in this world. It can even be intentional, causing no emotional, financial, social or intellectual profit. Maybe you have never met such a person or have never been in such an environment. You are confusing 'intent' with 'result'. No. You are confusing yourself with the rest of the world. Not really, but whatever... Even self-destructive behavior is in the vast majority of cases engaged in with the *intention* of profit. Best example I can think of would be a drug addict/alcoholic. When they use/drink, they 'profit' in that the feel better (albeit temporarily), regardless of the ultimate result. I wasn't really talking about drug addicts. You said 'self-destructive', so I just used the best 'self-destructive' reference I could think of... If you are interested in real self-destructive behaviour, talk to someone who has worked in an asylum which is only one interesting environment that can make you think very different about people. Ok, well, I wasn't talking about the truly *insane*, and it is disingenuous to use them as any kind of example in comparison to 'the rest of us'... There are even people who are not driven by anything, not even self-destruction. Pure apathy. I guarantee they are driven by more than that... often something as simple as 'comfort' (they would only get up in arms if you take away their TV and potato chips)... Another interesting thing... talk to a trial lawyer who has been in that business for 10+ years. I really doubt that many of those will support your profit intention concept. Most of the time it's about short-cut reactions that are merely following instincts or emotional impulses. Strong emotions can make someone lose control and do all sorts of weird things without any hope or intention of improving/gaining anything for living it out. Again, you ignore the different meanings of 'profit' and 'intent'. Following instincts or emotional impulses is *still* operating on the same principle. The profit (benefit) they get may be as simple as 'less pain', but it is still a benefit (profit). It's chemistry, it changes your consciousness. Profit is a bit more complex and requires a minimum amount of reflection, even if it is subconscious, short sighted and follows false assumptions. Not at all. A bull 'profits' by moving when the cattle prod is jammed up his ass. So these are just 3 points why your generalization does not work, Actually, they all serve to *support* my generalizations... if you are in fact honest enough to admit it.
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, February 20, 2014 06:34, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: On Tue, February 18, 2014 18:12, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: [ snip ] Of course the larger a project is the *potential* number of bugs increases, but so what? With enough developers, users and testers, all bugs are *potentially* squashed. Agreed, but I know of enough large projects with large development teams and even more users that don't get the most basic bugs fixed. Quantity is not equivalent to Quality. I also agree with that. My point is that the systemd project has enough numbers of *talented* developers to do it. You can disagree, of course. Talented developer, maybe. But not talented designers. And systemd has a *much* wider community than any other init system. So it can handle a larger code base. Incorrect. How many people use systemd as opposed to SysV Init? Users? Like five thousand godzillions more. I tend to disagree. Systemd is ONLY on Linux. SysV init can be found on alot of other platforms used in the world. Think Solaris, AIX, HPuX and Linux machines that have not had their init-systems changed. Developers? It would not surprise me that systemd has several times more developers that SysV ever had. Maybe, but the developers back then still followed the unix-way: Have a tool do one job and do it well. From what I see from systemd, it tries to do too much and the single jobs suffer from feature-bloat. What's more, I think those developers are talented enough, to say the least. I miss talented designers. SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains about 13 000 lines, systemd ââ¬â about 200 000 lines. If you take into account the thousands of shell code that SysV and OpenRC need to fill the functionality of systemd, they use even more. The shell-code is proven to work though and provided with most of the software. Where it isn't provided, it can be easily created. I have seen (and used) complex start-up scripts for large software implementations which complex dependencies. Fortunately, later versions of those software packages have fixed that mess to a large extend, but I wonder how well systemd unit-files can work in such an environment. You can read [1]. I think it provides a fair and impartial account of how to use systemd to start a complex service (NFS, by its author). I would not class NFS as a complex service. I am talking about a dozen different services that need to be started in a specific order where the next one is not allowed to start before the previous one actually responds to TCP/IP connections. How would I configure that in systemd unit-files? If I were to have sockets created in advance (does it work with TCP/IP sockets?) I would get timeouts on the responses which would lead to some services not starting correctly and ending up in limbo... Having sockets created prior to service start will not work as components will fail due to time-outs, leaving even a bigger mess. I could be wrong, but I believe the use of cgroups takes care of all that. If the service fails, systemd PID 1 can reliable detect it, and force the socket to close, and even reopen it for new connections if so configured by the administrator. Force the socket to close? That's nice, goodbye connection to one of the databases. Hello auto-shutdown of services because something is clearly wrong. With auto-restart, that will create an interesting sequence of events designed to really break the installation. If that code will fail, this wouldn't be critical at system level. Thus scope of fatal error is limited. Also in systemd, since most of its code is not critical (again; logind, datetimed, localed, etc., failing, has no impact whatsoever on the rest of the system). I understand the usecase for logind, but what is the point of a daemon to supply the time (datetimed)? Is this a full replacement for ntpd? And what does localed do? That's configured once in the environment and should be handled using environment variables. I'm sorry, but *everything* you are asking for is in the link I gave you that you qualified it of not necessary for this discussion (I also pointed someone else to [2]). If you are really interested in the answers, go on and read it there. It's certainly better than hearing it from me. Maybe, but based on the name, and I am assuming the names have some sort of relevance, localed makes no sense. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, February 20, 2014 06:24, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:50 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: On Tue, February 18, 2014 15:37, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:54 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: snipped Same question applies, can I disable these code-paths during compile-time? No you can't; if you wanted the journal to work exactly as rsyslog (or syslog-ng), then there is no reason to use the journal. Its raison d'être is the new features it brings. If you don't want those features, don't use the journal. Which means, don't use systemd, as it's all or nothing there. I do not see the need to have to spend time to change working code to be able to handle different formats. Well, I prefer it when someone does the work for me. So do I, but I doubt the systemd developers are willing to change all my scripts and monitoring tools to work with systemd. Additionally, the use of tail -f and grep allows me to check the logs real-time for debugging purposes. journalctl -f Checks the logs in real time. Again, [1]. Having to use a seperate tool that converts some proprietary binary format to human readable/scriptable single-line logs makes no sense. Its not proprietary; the source code is available, you can write your own parser if you want. The binary format is to be able to do O(log n) searches, that's it. It's a performance optimization. The specification for Office Open XML is also available. I do not see Libreoffice or Openoffice properly supporting that yet either, even though there is great demand and a large development team (with sufficient financing) available. It all sounds too much like the MS Windows Event-viewer to me. Never used it. It's a binary, indexed logging system that is part of the OS. Sounds similar to journald. Too many events with no usefull logging information (And I am referring to OS-level messages as to why default services are not starting) systemctl status apache2.service (see [2]) will print the status of the Apache web server, and also the last lines from the logs. You can control how many lines. You can check also with the journal, as I showed up. /etc/init.d/apache2 status will also tell me if it is running. And which logs? On a host with only 1 domain pointing to it, I have 6 logfiles for apache. And that is the default configuration. And what I was referring to was the useless info found in the event-log for services that are not written to actually use it. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, February 21, 2014 18:33, thegeezer wrote: On 02/20/2014 08:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: snipped .. setting systemd to log to syslog to make transitions smoother (as logs are lost on reboot by default) Eeerh, logs are lost on reboot? I only had (it died last weekend) one (yes, ONE) machine that was so configured and that was a netbook with only 16GB SSD. On all my machines I want to SEE the logs especially if it reboots unexpectedly.
[gentoo-user] flashcards?
I'm looking for an application to create flashcards for study. It'd be great to run the creation software on a gentoo workstation and then be able to download the flash cards by category to either an Iphone or an Android device... https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.flashcardmachine.app Suggestions? TIA, James
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, February 20, 2014 16:16, Alan McKinnon wrote: On 20/02/2014 11:16, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: 20.02.2014 09:24, Canek Peláez Valdés пиÑеÑ: [ snip ] but I do not see the point, beyond as a nice gimmick. Well, I *do* see a point. Many points, actually. You want the logs for SSH, from February 12 to February 15? Done: journalctl --since=2014-02-12 --until=2014-02-15 -u sshd.service No grep. No cat. No hunting logrotated logs (the journal will rotate automatically its logs, and will search on all logs available). You can have second-precision intervals. Also, the binary format that the journal uses is indexed (hence the binary part); therefore, the search is O(log n), no O(n). With a log with a million entries, that's about 20 steps. Perhaps it's just a gimmick to you. For me is a really usefull Clearly, it's reinventing a wheel. All that indexing stuff and O(log(n)) if really needed is easily achieved with databases. Not using cat and grep is not something one'd boast; rather, again, a waste of resources to recreate already existing tools. BTW, I wonder if anyone does really have logs with millions of lines in one single file, not split into files by date, service etc, so that the whole O(n) issue is moot. I have logs like that. It's not an uncommon scenario. I've seen logdirectories containing a a few hundred MB of logs on a test environment with a single user doing just one thing. Fortunately, there was a single file which indicated which of the 200+ files contained the actual error message I was looking for. I believe it would be a 5-minutes job to add the capability of printing last N log entries for a service to `rc-service status`. Using cat, grep and the like. No, that will not work easily for all definitions of easily. rc-something has zero control over where the logs go and no standard method to provide hints to the logger. Gentoo ships syslog* configs that basically stick everything in messages, where grepping them out is a PITA. I usually rewrite that config more to my taste and needs and rc-service cannot know what I did. So the idea fails at step 1 as the code does not know where the logs are. Would journald? Not reinventing wheels. Not spending super-talented super-highly paid developers' time on doing tasks one had done about 30 years ago. I believe, not having this option is due to its simple uselessness. 30 years ago we had isolated stand-alone machines without nothing like the logging needs we have today. Whilst I agree with you that systemd's logging tools may not be the solution, I can assure you (as someone who has to deal with this shit) that syslogging in the modern world is a mess. Try this: Decide you cannot afford Splunk, so do it yourself. Now get your Apache access logs into the same searchable database your other stuff is in, and do it in such a way that you can SELECT what you want out in obvious ways. Repeat for every other app you have that logs stuff. Remember to find the really important logs which are usually sitting in /opt/ and produced by Log4Perl or something equally abominable. Replace perl for a different 4-letter world depicting a language commonly used for enterprise applications supported on multiple platforms and you get what I have to deal with. One of those has the more commonly needed logs in 4 or 5 locations. This can easily end up being a lot more, depending on how it is being used. A script to find all those would need admin-level permissions into the application itself to query information needed to find the logfiles. Another application I worked with in the past had 20+ locations. A few of which contained 100+ logfiles after a few days of use. At least 5 of those didn't even have time-stamps. For those, a clever utility would be useful, but if I could write that, I'd use those AI-routines to take over the world ;) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: (When I say I'm done, I mean it; I'm making an exception to explain a mistake you made). Firstly, you don't control whether or not I send an e-mail. No, I don't; I never said that. This is a public non-moderated mailing list; anyone can write whatever it wants. What I said is *I* am done with *you*. You are only spreading FUD without giving any hard evidence nor any technical argument. Therefore *I* am not going to waste anymore of *my* time answering your mails in this thread, until you either provide hard evidence (not hearsay), and/or technical arguments. You are of course free to write whatever you want to the list. I'm just not going to engage with you anymore, until you provide those two basic things. And since you haven't in this new mail... good day, sir. [ sniped the part without any hard evidence nor technical arguments. ] Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote: [ snip ] If systemd truly is, as you say taking over and devouring the linux world Mark, although I agree with much of your mail (but not all), I don't think is fair how you are treating Tanstaafl; he never said that. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On 21.02.2014 08:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote: So all talks about systemd being modular are nothing more than nonsense. Guess what will happen on segfault in libsystemd.so? Segfaults in pid 1 are so nice to bear... And now with 209 there is a new systemd-networkd deamon that is started by default even if not configured or used. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTYxMTI Why has a init system a deamon to configure networks? What comes next? Systemd-Windowsd, a systemd replacement for all other desktop environments? Systemd-Browserd? Systemd-Officed? Greetings Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:40:46 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: [...] But I'm going to save you some bucks: there is nothing fishy. Carry on with the wires on the tin hat. Regards. Perfect. So that nails that bugaboo as well. All is good, then, absolutely nothing to see here. Thanks again for all you've done to convince us there's nothing nefarious going on. Cheers, - mykhyggz
Re: [gentoo-user] --jobs is ignored for unmerging?
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:14:00 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: I recently needed to unmerge Netbeans and KDE from a machine. So removed the top-level packages of those, and then ran: emerge -a --depclean --jobs 20 However, --jobs is being ignored. So I'm sitting there, watching hundreds of packages being unmerged one by one, taking a long time :-/ --jobs applies to the compilation phase of emerge. You can see that it is only ever installing one package at a time, so it is not surprising that the same applies to uninstalling. It makes sense, at least from the install perspective, portage checks for file collisions, if two packages tried to install the same file concurrently, it wouldn't be able to deal with the collision. -- Neil Bothwick Accordion: a bagpipe with pleats. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Providing a path for systemd on gentoo - 'profiles', or 'eselect module'? - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:32:07 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote: Ok, so, since it really is so simple, wouldn't it be easier to implement this as an eselect module then, as opposed to creating a bunch of separate profiles? profiles handle USE flags, eselect does not. Of course, you can use eselect to change profiles :) It's not as complex as creating a lot of different systemd profiles because of inheritance. I'd also suggest throwing in a test for current running kernel config, to make sure it fully supports booting with systemd, and maybe a new emerge command that can also be maintained to make sure that *all* necessary packages are rebuilt? That's already taken care of, the systemd ebuild checks your kernel config as part of the pre-emerge checks, nothing happens until you have a suitable kernel. -- Neil Bothwick If at first you don't succeed, redefine success. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:08:43 -0600 Daniel Campbell wrote: It's marginally clever, but so clearly obvious at the same time. It's sad (to me) that the community didn't see it coming. Those who did have been written off as conspiracy theorists or FUDders. Time will reveal all. Indeed time reveals everything and part of this foiled plot revealed itself two days ago. It was said earlier in the list by systemd supporters, that this project is modular, fine split to binaries and thus critical issues in the pid 1 are not that likely. And just look at systemd-209 release notes: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-February/017146.html [quote] We merged libsystemd-journal.so, libsystemd-id128.so, libsystemd-login and libsystemd-daemon into a a single libsystemd.so to reduce code duplication and avoid cyclic dependencies (see below). [/quote] So all talks about systemd being modular are nothing more than nonsense. Guess what will happen on segfault in libsystemd.so? Segfaults in pid 1 are so nice to bear... You have no idea what are you talking about, do you? The systemd binary (you know, PID 1) *DOESN'T LINK AGAINST libsystemd.so!* It's for consumers of systemd's APIs. And Canek please talk no more about how talented systemd programmers are or even about how professional they are, because they're no longer. They failed a trivial textbook example: what should one do when libraries A and B have some common code and cyclic deps? Push common code to library C. That's the Unix way and secure way. Creating single bloated library will help in neither fencing nor debugging, nor code audit. This actually I'm even willing to discuss. They give the rationale in the notes you linked: he reason for this is cyclic dependencies, as these libraries tend to use each other's symbols. It's true, they could have splitted even more the libraries, but they instead coalesced them. If the libraries used each other symbols, then they basically are functioning as a single module, and then it can be argued that coalescing them is a good move. I'm not saying I agree; I think I also would have preferred for them to split the cycles into another library. But I give the benefit of the doubt to the maintainers, and certainly would still think they are talented enough. (And again, it's a normal library, for third-party consumers, not PID 1). It looks like to me that ultimate goal of systemd is to consume as much system and user tools and interfaces as possible. Yeah, that's the idea. They have been pretty clear and honest about it. They want systemd to be the standard basic plumbing of Linux. Perhaps, in the ideal systemd world there will be nothing but linux-systemd kernel and systemd-stuff userspace. I would call it systemd-aware userspace, but yeah, again, that's the idea. Shell communication will extinct, all major application and daemons will be converted to systemd modules. Why would you disallow shell communication? It's pretty useful. But it will be complemented with dbus IPC and systemd controlled processes. It works pretty much like this with GNOME right now. If you don't want this, just keep using OpenRC. Nobody is forcing systemd on you. Of course this goal will be never achieved as-is, but one may consider it as an asymptote of their actions. They want systemd to be the basic plumbing of Linux, yes. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:56:31 -0500 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2014-02-21 10:28 AM, Gevisz gev...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:03:47 -0500 Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2014-02-21 8:54 AM, Daniel Campbell li...@sporkbox.us wrote: If you think all profit is the same, then we are talking on two different wavelengths. I didn't say that. I said that *everyone* operates under the profit motive. And that is simply not true. Yes, it is, but you may be confused about the meaning of 'profit'. Even someone who volunteers in the local soup kitchen feeding the homeless is doing so under the profit motive. The things is, the 'profit' involved (may) only involve(s) a 'warm fuzzy good feeling'. If you read my previous words Yes, I did. But now, I stop to do so just as have done with Canek before.
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 19:35:39 + hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Tanstaafl: On 2014-02-21 12:17 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Then you ignore self-destructive behaviour which is a common thing in this world. It can even be intentional, causing no emotional, financial, social or intellectual profit. Maybe you have never met such a person or have never been in such an environment. You are confusing 'intent' with 'result'. No. You are confusing yourself with the rest of the world. :-) Even self-destructive behavior is in the vast majority of cases engaged in with the *intention* of profit. Best example I can think of would be a drug addict/alcoholic. When they use/drink, they 'profit' in that the feel better (albeit temporarily), regardless of the ultimate result. I wasn't really talking about drug addicts. If you are interested in real self-destructive behaviour, talk to someone who has worked in an asylum which is only one interesting environment that can make you think very different about people. There are even people who are not driven by anything, not even self-destruction. Pure apathy. Another interesting thing... talk to a trial lawyer who has been in that business for 10+ years. I really doubt that many of those will support your profit intention concept. Most of the time it's about short-cut reactions that are merely following instincts or emotional impulses. Strong emotions can make someone lose control and do all sorts of weird things without any hope or intention of improving/gaining anything for living it out. It's chemistry, it changes your consciousness. Profit is a bit more complex and requires a minimum amount of reflection, even if it is subconscious, short sighted and follows false assumptions. So these are just 3 points why your generalization does not work, like most of those all people... phrases. Unless you hack on the definition until it suits your interpretation, like redefining profit intention to intention. Thank you for the wonderful answer! This reminds me of the user in computer science papers. Well, which one. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTB6qKAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzD5MH/3qVBSactWRWng+x1bT29eP/ Vsd3pSdP5GJ5JkH8Vj2LAhRJy9feRselI/TnZuXOOT+gTzAT+ip1fgqmIHTkaLEx Z1a4L5WXEQxTq9aSoaBFzxstont0zb6LWHfW+c8H+V6UTXPUv6ZdGqP+PlLMLpYO az0KiB09PMa/a3LOzPjhACQ6s1aRo5d4mUqOG91rxh3bOljt6WlMJ61ZEATQGwZt iZJff4sO0qG9p6YeoZED0ep6QvH4UGkfl3yboiVf08uf9mbGSTnOffe5GSJqeBKo 9uGK/tJJ4vkYqcEG60pZaqBuIguobzh84rwWg8DGs++Nv9dWbXi7Focpdse/OaU= =8l+x -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:14 PM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: On Thu, February 20, 2014 06:34, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: On Tue, February 18, 2014 18:12, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: [ snip ] Of course the larger a project is the *potential* number of bugs increases, but so what? With enough developers, users and testers, all bugs are *potentially* squashed. Agreed, but I know of enough large projects with large development teams and even more users that don't get the most basic bugs fixed. Quantity is not equivalent to Quality. I also agree with that. My point is that the systemd project has enough numbers of *talented* developers to do it. You can disagree, of course. Talented developer, maybe. But not talented designers. That's subjective. For me (and many others), the design of systemd is sound. And systemd has a *much* wider community than any other init system. So it can handle a larger code base. Incorrect. How many people use systemd as opposed to SysV Init? Users? Like five thousand godzillions more. I tend to disagree. I meant that SysV has like five thousand godzillions more that systemd. Sorry for the confussion. Systemd is ONLY on Linux. SysV init can be found on alot of other platforms used in the world. Think Solaris, AIX, HPuX and Linux machines that have not had their init-systems changed. Developers? It would not surprise me that systemd has several times more developers that SysV ever had. Maybe, but the developers back then still followed the unix-way: Have a tool do one job and do it well. Again, for many of us that doesn't matter, and we don't take it like an article of faith. From what I see from systemd, it tries to do too much and the single jobs suffer from feature-bloat. Many of us believe they solve real problems, and they make our life easier. What's more, I think those developers are talented enough, to say the least. I miss talented designers. Wonder why? SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains about 13 000 lines, systemd  about 200 000 lines. If you take into account the thousands of shell code that SysV and OpenRC need to fill the functionality of systemd, they use even more. The shell-code is proven to work though and provided with most of the software. Where it isn't provided, it can be easily created. I have seen (and used) complex start-up scripts for large software implementations which complex dependencies. Fortunately, later versions of those software packages have fixed that mess to a large extend, but I wonder how well systemd unit-files can work in such an environment. You can read [1]. I think it provides a fair and impartial account of how to use systemd to start a complex service (NFS, by its author). I would not class NFS as a complex service. I am talking about a dozen different services that need to be started in a specific order where the next one is not allowed to start before the previous one actually responds to TCP/IP connections. If you had read the link, you would have learned that NFS has 14 unit files, form a lot of daemons that have to run in concurrent form (and some of them only when others are not, etc.) It *IS* a complex service. How would I configure that in systemd unit-files? Read the link If I were to have sockets created in advance (does it work with TCP/IP sockets?) I would get timeouts on the responses which would lead to some services not starting correctly and ending up in limbo... You don't know how the socket activation works, do you? At boot time, if a service ask for a socket on port 1234 (and yes, they work on TCP/IP sockets), systemd opens the socket for the service, and the service *does not start yet*. When the *first* connection gets into the socket, systemd starts the service, and when it finishes starting, systemd passes the opened socket to it as an fd. Done, now the service has control of the socket, and it will until the services terminates; not when the connection closes (although you can configure it that way), when the *service* terminates. If several connections arrive to the socket *before* the service finishes starting up, the kernel automatically queues them, and when systemd handles the socket to the service, the service does it things for all of them. There is *no single* connection lost. Well, if a godzillion connections arrive before the service finishes starting up, the kernel queue is finite and some would be lost, but it would have to be a lot of connections arriving in a window of some microseconds. Having sockets created prior to service start will not work as components will fail due to time-outs, leaving even a bigger mess. I could be wrong, but I believe the use of cgroups takes care of all that. If the service fails, systemd PID 1 can reliable detect it, and force the socket to
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Sebastian Beßler sebast...@darkmetatron.de wrote: On 21.02.2014 08:42, Andrew Savchenko wrote: So all talks about systemd being modular are nothing more than nonsense. Guess what will happen on segfault in libsystemd.so? Segfaults in pid 1 are so nice to bear... And now with 209 there is a new systemd-networkd deamon that is started by default even if not configured or used. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTYxMTI $ ./configure --help | grep networkd --disable-networkd disable networkd It can be disabled. Why has a init system a deamon to configure networks? So you don't need the same script (or service unit file) that configures an static IP or bridge, in millions of servers that do not want to use NetworkManager or anything similar. Again, is optional, you can disable it. What comes next? Systemd-Windowsd, a systemd replacement for all other desktop environments? Systemd-Browserd? Systemd-Officed? Yeah, because configuring an static IP is similar to LibreOffice. Get real. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Michael Higgins li...@evolone.org wrote: On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:40:46 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: [...] But I'm going to save you some bucks: there is nothing fishy. Carry on with the wires on the tin hat. Regards. Perfect. So that nails that bugaboo as well. All is good, then, absolutely nothing to see here. Thanks again for all you've done to convince us there's nothing nefarious going on. You are welcome. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: OT: 'profit motive' - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Even self-destructive behavior is in the vast majority of cases engaged in with the *intention* of profit. Best example I can think of would be a drug addict/alcoholic. When they use/drink, they 'profit' in that the feel better (albeit temporarily), regardless of the ultimate result. I wasn't really talking about drug addicts. You said 'self-destructive', so I just used the best 'self-destructive' reference I could think of... It was not the best. If you are interested in real self-destructive behaviour, talk to someone who has worked in an asylum which is only one interesting environment that can make you think very different about people. Ok, well, I wasn't talking about the truly *insane*, and it is disingenuous to use them as any kind of example in comparison to 'the rest of us'... That is just one example and those are not few people. Ruling them out in your generalization is invalid and just proves that you are trolling. The rest of us is as well defined as your profit intention stuff. Meh. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTB/ZWAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzO8UIAJHAVyQCrpMp/bW0yKbAnHSK yvW+15teMgbQZQdru34OYjXHpiLFgjnKF+OwGgOE8+vA908Kawc5Fme2aazYGtC1 gnqFlnnFkMiE37hNvGmef7Jpzl/q1UuZPJHDeh6m0kAJ0QjoxbANxNayQThd1QNX UrlJEpzOr6LwDrjkTnnwcwzNLymr9EB8NAehqd4B5/jsf0ZFoUo7Zn9DOhlv8olp PqdnjkVuIgrtVxhd6OBeQ3OVPsE7qyI5ZTfJUDYYef38WJ6PDj2Nc7jEblJKPsxS NWnZKfS/1w7oIUqnzwS36mKf+PhWrGqefJcIfE3E68DeW+2kxpZlvSCnFMM/sX4= =eRGW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-user] RAID 1 on /boot
Hi all. I'm new in the list, this is my third message :) First at all, I need to say sorry if my english is not perfect. I speak spanish. I post here because gentoo-user-es it's middle dead, and it's a great chance to practice my english :) Now, the problem. I'm going to get a new PC with a disc SSD 120GB and another HDD of 1TB. But in a coming future, I want to add 2 or more disks SSD. Mi idea now, is: Disk HHD: /dev/sda /dev/sda1 26GB /dev/sda2 90GB /dev/sda3 904GB Disk SSD: /dev/sdb /dev/sdb1 26GB /dev/sdb2 90GB /dev/sdb3 4GB And use /dev/sdb3 as swap. (I will add more with another SSD in future) /dev/sda3 mounted in /home/user/data (to save data unused) And a RAID 1 with: md0: sda1+sdb1/ md1: sda2+sdb2/home (sda1 and sda2 will be made with the flag: write-mostly. This is useful for disks slower). In a future, I'm going to add more SSD's on this RAID. My idea is the fastest I/O. Now. My problem/question is: Following the gentoo's dochttp://www.gentoo.org/doc/es/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml, it says I need to put the flag --metadata=0.9 on the RAID. My question is ¿This will make get off the performance?. I only found this documenthttps://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID_superblock_formats#The_version-0.90_Superblock_Format. This says the difference, but nothing about performance and advantages/disadvantages. Another question is, ¿GRUB2 still unsupporting metadata 1.2? In case that metadata get off performance, and GRUB2 doesn't support this. ¿Anyone knows how can I fix this to use metadata 1.2? I don't partitioned more, because I saw this unnecessary. I just need to separate /home in case I need to format the system. But if I need to separate /boot to make it work, I don't have problems doing that. But of course, /boot also as RAID... ¿Somebody have any ideas to make it work? Thank you all. Bytes! ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID 1 on /boot
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Facundo Curti facu.cu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. I'm new in the list, this is my third message :) First at all, I need to say sorry if my english is not perfect. I speak spanish. I post here because gentoo-user-es it's middle dead, and it's a great chance to practice my english :) Now, the problem. I'm going to get a new PC with a disc SSD 120GB and another HDD of 1TB. But in a coming future, I want to add 2 or more disks SSD. Mi idea now, is: Disk HHD: /dev/sda /dev/sda1 26GB /dev/sda2 90GB /dev/sda3 904GB Disk SSD: /dev/sdb /dev/sdb1 26GB /dev/sdb2 90GB /dev/sdb3 4GB And use /dev/sdb3 as swap. (I will add more with another SSD in future) /dev/sda3 mounted in /home/user/data (to save data unused) And a RAID 1 with: md0: sda1+sdb1/ md1: sda2+sdb2/home (sda1 and sda2 will be made with the flag: write-mostly. This is useful for disks slower). In a future, I'm going to add more SSD's on this RAID. My idea is the fastest I/O. Now. My problem/question is: Following the gentoo's doc, it says I need to put the flag --metadata=0.9 on the RAID. My question is ¿This will make get off the performance?. I only found this document. This says the difference, but nothing about performance and advantages/disadvantages. I don't know the performance differences, if any, but in my tests everything worked with the default metadata (1.2). Another question is, ¿GRUB2 still unsupporting metadata 1.2? No, GRUB2 supports it just fine. You just need to use the mdraid1x GRUB2 module. In case that metadata get off performance, and GRUB2 doesn't support this. ¿Anyone knows how can I fix this to use metadata 1.2? It's not necessary. I don't partitioned more, because I saw this unnecessary. I just need to separate /home in case I need to format the system. But if I need to separate /boot to make it work, I don't have problems doing that. It works fine; I tested it in a virtual machine (and I used systemd, but it should not be significantly different with OpenRC). You can check my steps in [1] and [2] (with LUKS support). But of course, /boot also as RAID... It works even with boot being on LVM over RAID. ¿Somebody have any ideas to make it work? I didn't tested in a real life machine (I've never been a fan of neither RAID nor LVM), but in a VM it worked without a hitch. Again, check [1] and [2]. Hope it helps. Regards. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/269586 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/269628 -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID 1 on /boot
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: [ snip ] [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/269586 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/269628 Also, check [3], since the solution on [2] was unnecessarily complex. Regards. [3] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/269628 -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:14 PM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: On Thu, February 20, 2014 06:34, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: On Tue, February 18, 2014 18:12, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: [ snip ] Of course the larger a project is the *potential* number of bugs increases, but so what? With enough developers, users and testers, all bugs are *potentially* squashed. Agreed, but I know of enough large projects with large development teams and even more users that don't get the most basic bugs fixed. Quantity is not equivalent to Quality. I also agree with that. My point is that the systemd project has enough numbers of *talented* developers to do it. You can disagree, of course. Talented developer, maybe. But not talented designers. That's subjective. For me (and many others), the design of systemd is sound. And systemd has a *much* wider community than any other init system. So it can handle a larger code base. Incorrect. How many people use systemd as opposed to SysV Init? Users? Like five thousand godzillions more. I tend to disagree. I meant that SysV has like five thousand godzillions more that systemd. Sorry for the confussion. Systemd is ONLY on Linux. SysV init can be found on alot of other platforms used in the world. Think Solaris, AIX, HPuX and Linux machines that have not had their init-systems changed. Developers? It would not surprise me that systemd has several times more developers that SysV ever had. Maybe, but the developers back then still followed the unix-way: Have a tool do one job and do it well. Again, for many of us that doesn't matter, and we don't take it like an article of faith. From what I see from systemd, it tries to do too much and the single jobs suffer from feature-bloat. Many of us believe they solve real problems, and they make our life easier. What's more, I think those developers are talented enough, to say the least. I miss talented designers. Wonder why? SysVinit code size is about 10 000 lines of code, OpenRC contains about 13 000 lines, systemd  about 200 000 lines. If you take into account the thousands of shell code that SysV and OpenRC need to fill the functionality of systemd, they use even more. The shell-code is proven to work though and provided with most of the software. Where it isn't provided, it can be easily created. I have seen (and used) complex start-up scripts for large software implementations which complex dependencies. Fortunately, later versions of those software packages have fixed that mess to a large extend, but I wonder how well systemd unit-files can work in such an environment. You can read [1]. I think it provides a fair and impartial account of how to use systemd to start a complex service (NFS, by its author). I would not class NFS as a complex service. I am talking about a dozen different services that need to be started in a specific order where the next one is not allowed to start before the previous one actually responds to TCP/IP connections. If you had read the link, you would have learned that NFS has 14 unit files, form a lot of daemons that have to run in concurrent form (and some of them only when others are not, etc.) It *IS* a complex service. How would I configure that in systemd unit-files? Read the link Canek, you're too polite. This deserves a /usr/src/linux/Documentation/ManagementStyle, chapter 5 reply. At my risk entirely, here is one: You ignorant nitwit. Read the fine link. Read the fine docs. Read the fine manual. Read the fine publicly posted rationales. Read the fine publicly held distro and package manager discussions. And know what a fine socket is before you start spouting your diarrhea crap about spawning sockets in advance. And if you don't, here's the thing, maybe you're not really familiar with the Unix way that you're so proud about. Because you don't get to skip all that and make ridiculous sweeping generalizations and assertions that the docs DO answer. The so-called Unix way that many of you peeps are waxing priest-like about is in reality just one aspect, one part of the Unix way, meant to apply to a particular class of applications. It doesn't apply to everything. Especially, text filter design does not apply to applications that are meant for solving genuinely complex problems - the kernel itself is a glaring violation of the one small thing doing one thing well rule. And why? One, because it uses that complexity to solve things that would be harder to do in the minikernel approach, and two, even as the complex beast it has become it's still simpler (read: Unixier) than the alternative solution of interacting servers. Even as the complex beast it has become systemd is still simpler than the alternative of having abominations of
