Re: How to make systemd more reliable
On Friday, 30 September 2016 2:54:42 PM AEST Ray via luv-main wrote: > Many thanks for an excellent summing up, I was going to put forward a > response but your reply has covered all my points nicely. One thing > though I will say is I was quite disturbed about the level of hostility > in Russel's post. If systemd's supporters need to resort to this level > the obvious conclusion one comes to is systemd cannot be that good. Wow that's a really bizarre response. In my initial message I linked to my blog post about the abuse I received from anti-systemd people. If "hostility" from advocates implies that a product is deficient then all the homophobic and misogynistic abuse I received in response to a blog post ABOUT TECHNICAL ISSUES OF USING SYSTEMD is surely great evidence of the problems with SysVInit! The "hostility" you accuse me of is merely objecting to being abused by anti- systemd people and having my friends be subject to abuse for their Debian development work. The free sofware you enjoy using is written by many people who spend a lot of their time on it. Time that could be spent doing paid work or in other recreational activities. Fortunately for all of us (including you) the people who were subject to such abuse didn't cease their involvement in free software work (AFAIK) but instead moved to other areas, or in some cases dedicated some time to opposing the abuse. Yes I am spending time writing blog posts and mailing list messages about abuse in the free software community instead of developing free software. Is that REALLY what you want? Can't we just agree that abusing people who develop or support software you don't like is the wrong thing to do? If you want Debian developers to fully support SysVInit what do you think your best strategy is? Do you think that accusing me of "hostility" because I object to profane abuse is going to make me more inclined to support the init system you prefer? Or do you think it might be a better strategy to agree that abusing people who donate their free time to developing software you use for free is a bad thing? PS If you deliberately mis-spelled my name as part of a flame, that's primary- school level. Criticising my "hostile" response towards bullies is high- school level. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/ ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
On 30.09.2016 13:26, Rick Moen via luv-main wrote: Quoting russ...@coker.com.au (russ...@coker.com.au): People who have chosen systemd have spent a lot of time making it work better and solving some real problems that other init systems have had for many years. People who want to choose SysVInit have spent a lot of time flaming people who write the code. I continue to like OpenRC a great deal, as the init system. I'm still looking around for the most conservatively written, narrowly scoped PID1 process. (OpenRC doesn't handle being PID1.) I've written a description of how to (very easily) convert Debian 8 'Jessie' over to OpenRC -- or to runit, sysvinit, or upstart, all of those available packaged in Debian 8 -- and make that architecture decision persist. It turned out to be very easy. Actually I wrote the basic details on this mailing list, in response to a question about that. Later, I fleshed out the topic for my Web site: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Debian/openrc-conversion.html We had a "debate" about the relative merits of the various init systems on this list some time ago. It turned out that only one of the people who were criticising systemd had actually used it, and that person wasn't making the more extreme criticisms. https://etbe.coker.com.au/2015/04/26/anti-systemd-people/ Both on this mailing list and on your blog, you seem obsessed with, in effect, calling some set of unnamed but broadly scoped critics names, e.g., that they're just flamers, misogynistic, homophobic, and driven by hostility and hate. I'm sure you're aware that this variety of rhetoric suffers a rather serious 'if so, so what?' problem (residing somewhere among the subvarieties of non-sequitur appeal). But anyway, I generally find it a great deal more interesting to discuss technology, than to detail at length how awful are the tribe on the other side of the figurative river. Lots if excellent discusion cut out... ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main Many thanks for an excellent summing up, I was going to put forward a response but your reply has covered all my points nicely. One thing though I will say is I was quite disturbed about the level of hostility in Russel's post. If systemd's supporters need to resort to this level the obvious conclusion one comes to is systemd cannot be that good. I have tried and in fact I still have one of my 4 systems running systemd,now it is Debian 7 32 bit, Debian 8 unfortunately not handling well some items I need to run (Googlearth mainly, there are others). I have found this system is NOT reliable inspite of it being almost identical in hardware to my other main system. Note: all my systems were quite happy with Debian 6. I have not needed to use my systemd system much, this will shortly change and I will be re intstalling Debian 7 without systemd and see if the relibailty issue vanishes, as it could of course be another issue entirely. Using linux since 1993, Lindsay ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
Quoting russ...@coker.com.au (russ...@coker.com.au): > People who have chosen systemd have spent a lot of time making it work better > and solving some real problems that other init systems have had for many > years. People who want to choose SysVInit have spent a lot of time flaming > people who write the code. I continue to like OpenRC a great deal, as the init system. I'm still looking around for the most conservatively written, narrowly scoped PID1 process. (OpenRC doesn't handle being PID1.) I've written a description of how to (very easily) convert Debian 8 'Jessie' over to OpenRC -- or to runit, sysvinit, or upstart, all of those available packaged in Debian 8 -- and make that architecture decision persist. It turned out to be very easy. Actually I wrote the basic details on this mailing list, in response to a question about that. Later, I fleshed out the topic for my Web site: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Debian/openrc-conversion.html > We had a "debate" about the relative merits of the various init systems on > this list some time ago. It turned out that only one of the people who were > criticising systemd had actually used it, and that person wasn't making the > more extreme criticisms. > > https://etbe.coker.com.au/2015/04/26/anti-systemd-people/ Both on this mailing list and on your blog, you seem obsessed with, in effect, calling some set of unnamed but broadly scoped critics names, e.g., that they're just flamers, misogynistic, homophobic, and driven by hostility and hate. I'm sure you're aware that this variety of rhetoric suffers a rather serious 'if so, so what?' problem (residing somewhere among the subvarieties of non-sequitur appeal). But anyway, I generally find it a great deal more interesting to discuss technology, than to detail at length how awful are the tribe on the other side of the figurative river. In your more _charitable_ moments, you've been known to dismiss being fond of something other than systemd as mere conservatism -- relying on, among other things, the false assumption that anything else is backwards. A point I'll get to in a moment. However, I did want to stop here and praise the 'mere conservatism' rhetoric as at least not the total non-sequitur fallacy that the name-calling is. ;-> > It's quite likely that I have contributed more patches for init systems than > anyone else on this list. The attitude of SysVInit fans doesn't make me > inclined to spend any more effort patching that init system. You know, I just remembered what this 'systemd must always be compared to SysVInit and nothing else' trope reminds me of: djbware fans would always characteristically compare qmail only with Sendmail, and djbdns only with BIND. This behaviour persisted _long_ after Postfix, Exim, and Courier-MTA emerged as competitors to qmail, and long after NSD/Unbound, PowerDNS, and MaraDNS/Deadwood emerged as competitors to djbdns. A cynic might imagine these worthies to be unwilling to compare against _modern_ alternatives to Prof. Bernstein's eccentric creations. Anyway, thank heavens, Unix open source offers a smorgasbord of worthwhile options in the software categories in question. Here is a partial list: init systems: systemd, Upstart, Epoch, finit, SysVinit, initng, runit, s6, OpenRC, BSD init, nosh. inits (PID1): BusyBox, SysVinit, ninit, sinit, minit, systemd, BSD init, Upstart, finit, runit, Epoch, nosh, uinit. service managers: OpenRC, finit, runit, daemontools / daemontools-encore, systemd, s6-rc, initng, Epoch, nosh, anopa, supervisord. My current idea of a good system composite is a really tiny, minimal PID1 (leaning towards BusyBox[1]) spawning OpenRC as the init system. If I ever actually need service supervision, I'd probably use runit or supervisord on whatever daemons merit such supervision. Because, really, building big feature sets into PID1? I rather think not. It should catch signals and reparent orphan processes (reap zombies), and collect their return status. Processing poweroff and reboot is nice (as part of catching signals). All else including the rest of process handling (the 'init systems' bit), such as process supervision, dependency management, daemon start/stop, libdbus interface, handling /dev changes, monitoring mount points / files / sockets / timers, parsing of various files / messages / strings, and all the rest, need not be in PID1, so I'd rather it _not_ be in such a sensitive and vital place. Yes, having process supervision in PID1 is the only way for total process control to be possible, but I don't have any use-cases where that is actually needed. And socket activation is actually a big dumb bad idea as we know from initd/xinetd, but available with sundry toolkits if you actually want it. Please notice that I don't call either systemd or its acolytes names. I merely say 'I'm glad you like it' to the latter and 'No thanks for now, but I'll
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
On 30/09/16 08:29, Chris Samuel via luv-main wrote: On Thursday, 29 September 2016 5:00:39 PM AEST Andrew Pam wrote: I miss TECO. Oh no, wait, no I don't. Grin, I think I missed that one, instead having to use FRED on a Honeywell L66 running GCOS-3 (from memory). That was a pure line editor, because the L66 only had a line input mode as there was a front end system between you and the main machine that only passed on input/output when hit hit enter. :-) https://www.thinkage.ca/english/gcos/expl/fred/expl.html Um, late 60's, some sed-like variant. It really was a _stream_ editor - you prepared a paper tape of edit commands and ran it against the original file paper tape to create the new file on paper tape. The output tape ran at 400 chars/sec, the input was optically read at faster than that. ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 5:00:39 PM AEST Andrew Pam wrote: > I miss TECO. Oh no, wait, no I don't. Grin, I think I missed that one, instead having to use FRED on a Honeywell L66 running GCOS-3 (from memory). That was a pure line editor, because the L66 only had a line input mode as there was a front end system between you and the main machine that only passed on input/output when hit hit enter. :-) https://www.thinkage.ca/english/gcos/expl/fred/expl.html -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 3:20:37 PM AEST Paul van den Bergen via luv- main wrote: > Fanbois huh? vi or emacs? > > I'm going to be critical here - it is rare that you have personal choice > over the tools your system uses. Do the job in front of you. If that means > you support windows ME as a security portal(!), that's what you do... at > least until you find a better job. We have choices, but choices have to be backed by work - which is the hard part. People who have chosen systemd have spent a lot of time making it work better and solving some real problems that other init systems have had for many years. People who want to choose SysVInit have spent a lot of time flaming people who write the code. We had a "debate" about the relative merits of the various init systems on this list some time ago. It turned out that only one of the people who were criticising systemd had actually used it, and that person wasn't making the more extreme criticisms. https://etbe.coker.com.au/2015/04/26/anti-systemd-people/ It seems that discussions of systemd attract the attention of horrible people. I felt compelled to write the above blog post after a blog post about technical issues related to systemd got a lot of hateful comments. It's quite likely that I have contributed more patches for init systems than anyone else on this list. The attitude of SysVInit fans doesn't make me inclined to spend any more effort patching that init system. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/ ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
On 29/09/16 17:12, Rick Moen via luv-main wrote: On 29/09/16 16:12, Rick Moen via luv-main wrote: But what does your _name_ do in TECO? ;-> It makes me glad emacs and vi were created! :P Cheers, Andrew ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
Quoting Andrew Pam (and...@sericyb.com.au):
> On 29/09/16 16:12, Rick Moen via luv-main wrote:
> >ftp://linuxmafia.com/pub/humour/ed-is-the-standard-text-editor
>
> I miss TECO. Oh no, wait, no I don't.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
{laughs}
But what does your _name_ do in TECO? ;->
(I first encountered vi during summer session at Evans Hall, University
of California at Berkeley -- the very building in which it was written.
This was circa 1980, I think. I absolutely _loathed_ it. Irony, there,
as for the last twenty years or so I might as well set
init=/usr/bin/vim, as I spend most of my time, there.)
___
luv-main mailing list
luv-main@luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
On 29/09/16 16:12, Rick Moen via luv-main wrote: ftp://linuxmafia.com/pub/humour/ed-is-the-standard-text-editor I miss TECO. Oh no, wait, no I don't. Cheers, Andrew ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
Re: How to make systemd more reliable
Quoting Paul van den Bergen (paul.vandenber...@gmail.com): > Fanbois huh? vi or emacs? ftp://linuxmafia.com/pub/humour/ed-is-the-standard-text-editor (For some reason, many Yanks cannot seem to locate my humour directory. I blame the education system -- lamentable problems spelling the English language, and all that.) -- Cheers,My pid is Inigo Montoya. You kill -9 Rick Moen my parent process. Prepare to vi. r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) ___ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
