Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:20:10AM +0300, Menachem Moystoviz wrote: In addition, it may be considered to move from systemv to NetBSD's init, which stays in-line with the simple interface of rc.conf but adds parallelization and modularity. That'd win so hard. Lastly, it may be beneficial to suggest to users to install one of the daemon monitors. Daemontools has been working sufficiently well for my purposes. It's lean, robust, and I'm a fan of the exec chain. For this reason, while we should add compatibility for systemd, we shouldn't force it down the users throats. How do you add support in this way?
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Op 29 jul. 2012 17:11 schreef Anthony apos;apos;Ishpeckapos;apos; Tedjamulia archli...@ishpeck.net het volgende: On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:20:10AM +0300, Menachem Moystoviz wrote: [...] Daemontools has been working sufficiently well for my purposes. It's lean, robust, and I'm a fan of the exec chain. For this reason, while we should add compatibility for systemd, we shouldn't force it down the users throats. How do you add support in this way? Use a script to parse the systemd unit files. If you let the admin configure which daemons to start, then you mainly have to use the execstart lines, i guess. The arch init scripts are still suported, btw. mvg, Guus
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
As far as I can tell from the systemd blog and people's reactions here, the only advantages systemd offers are: - Splitting the configuration files, which increases the robustness of the configuration files - Daemon supervision - Bootup speedup by parallelizing the daemons. However, from the responses of some people, like Jorge Almeida, I see that the benefits of systemd are also given by other programs. - It has been suggested in a different thread to implement support for rc.conf to source other files - which would allow rc.conf to split cleanly - As Jorge Almeida suggested, daemontools [1], perp [2] and s6 [3] can supply daemon supervision *without* changing the init scheme - A patch [4] has been posted, and possibly added, to NetBSD's rcorder, which allows daemons to be started concurrently. As far as init systems go, it seems to me that while Arch touts using a BSD-style init, it's actually hacking around sysvinit to provide a BSD-like interface. This seems wrong to me, as BSD already provides a robust init framework. Why simulate that which you can use? In addition, people have cried out against several problems with systemd, which include: - ini-style configuration vs. shell-style configuration - Large, monolithic binary It seems to me that in addition to adding support for systemd could ease compatibility with other distro's, it would be beneficial to add sourcing to rc.conf (or alternatively to symlink the new systemd configuration files to files in rc.d). However, the only reason to do so is because systemd is widely used - i.e. I do not suggest doing this for every init system around. In addition, it may be considered to move from systemv to NetBSD's init, which stays in-line with the simple interface of rc.conf but adds parallelization and modularity. Lastly, it may be beneficial to suggest to users to install one of the daemon monitors. In sum, systemd offers some benefits that are covered by other programs and patches, while drawing much controversy and exacting a toll which seems a bit too large in the eyes of some users. For this reason, while we should add compatibility for systemd, we shouldn't force it down the users throats. Just my two cents. M [1] - http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html [2] - http://b0llix.net/perp/ [3] - http://www.skarnet.org/software/s6/ [4] - http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=25822 (Concurrent execution of rc-scripts with rcorder(8) )
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Menachem Moystoviz moyst...@g.jct.ac.ilwrote: As far as I can tell from the systemd blog and people's reactions here, the only advantages systemd offers are: - Splitting the configuration files, which increases the robustness of the configuration files - Daemon supervision - Bootup speedup by parallelizing the daemons. However, from the responses of some people, like Jorge Almeida, I see that the benefits of systemd are also given by other programs. - It has been suggested in a different thread to implement support for rc.conf to source other files - which would allow rc.conf to split cleanly - As Jorge Almeida suggested, daemontools [1], perp [2] and s6 [3] can supply daemon supervision *without* changing the init scheme - A patch [4] has been posted, and possibly added, to NetBSD's rcorder, which allows daemons to be started concurrently. As far as init systems go, it seems to me that while Arch touts using a BSD-style init, it's actually hacking around sysvinit to provide a BSD-like interface. This seems wrong to me, as BSD already provides a robust init framework. Why simulate that which you can use? In addition, people have cried out against several problems with systemd, which include: - ini-style configuration vs. shell-style configuration - Large, monolithic binary It seems to me that in addition to adding support for systemd could ease compatibility with other distro's, it would be beneficial to add sourcing to rc.conf (or alternatively to symlink the new systemd configuration files to files in rc.d). However, the only reason to do so is because systemd is widely used - i.e. I do not suggest doing this for every init system around. In addition, it may be considered to move from systemv to NetBSD's init, which stays in-line with the simple interface of rc.conf but adds parallelization and modularity. Lastly, it may be beneficial to suggest to users to install one of the daemon monitors. In sum, systemd offers some benefits that are covered by other programs and patches, while drawing much controversy and exacting a toll which seems a bit too large in the eyes of some users. For this reason, while we should add compatibility for systemd, we shouldn't force it down the users throats. Just my two cents. M [1] - http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html [2] - http://b0llix.net/perp/ [3] - http://www.skarnet.org/software/s6/ [4] - http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=25822 (Concurrent execution of rc-scripts with rcorder(8) ) here here
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/28/2012 02:20 PM, Menachem Moystoviz wrote: In sum, systemd offers some benefits that are covered by other programs and patches, while drawing much controversy and exacting a toll which seems a bit too large in the eyes of some users. For this reason, while we should add compatibility for systemd, we shouldn't force it down the users throats. Having just survived the conversion to systemd, I would offer a few comments: 1) I learned stuff on this list that didn't seem to have been available in the documentation. And I still don't feel I really have a mastery of systemd service files. My feeling is that the man pages and the wiki could probably use more work. 2) It looks to me like there is some ugliness on logging. The Arch wiki suggests a change to the syslog-ng configuration file so that syslog-ng can work with the systemd journal. The trouble I'm having with that is that--these are the examples I know about--apache2 and postfix do not seem willing to log in a way that the systemd journal can pick up; these daemons apparently will only log through the traditional syslog-ng channel, and are not compatible with the new socket. I actually kind of like journalctl (it has a -f option so you can monitor it like you used to be able to do with tail -f /var/log/everything.log), but you really now have to do multiple commands to get everything that everything.log used to get. 3) The conversion to systemd was mostly a lot of work. It wasn't rocket science, though as noted above, I still don't feel I fully understand what's going on. Many, many packages, especially in the AUR, do not yet have service files. This leads me to suspect that there is at least as much angst among package maintainers about all this as we've seen on this list. - -- David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQFMgoAAoJELT202JKF+xplvYQAI6DcviIC2y69t2uhXmadn9X 2XYX+2YHbnM4OnAU2ysdj67bgcN2vKDQiT8GrAb+JQOphx8P0Y4NefkC1fMZUpzy f8EMOIzRaHjfOJ4RKjM+eT9hM3Kg3qlroI9hIcEZM59UnCRMLL1qa8RMY58Bj0lV oOBa4Y2MAi7wNJ0ZlLDnQEFGMNhME9sWaGXYV+VRgzjVUaxAz0/MetJum+Wz5YFv QAHyOgSl14UeB1AeenMxZrS0SDSTVvLofXJRCkus5TqvJFJ9cEakHz2RNvN1Tyft yEW/8vgPSFz160GOvGXVxmqSh0SrYWLUGhRWQ1dLd1j4PI6dB85Sh1u1Z8jVx7Z/ 286o4HBvQHkSMALLDxmgdaltuxlKlOwEn/ZEkUB3tZHXWl3/WD8OtZ/EulUgl/DB vOxWHFWFyt4MKU1tHqwP+UTqKI01y515+uARYmih7vQ2JsXyOXhd76nkgm13M7Pp dTuYlQa9AKOQmyRKsMpYMqerdyo1wYflr8ZgE3vOjjCFFYYYOLXq8jePUcepivvv vdf7Gk2GGHoZrNrBdd82SOaVRKMyKdKEJT5TB1rPf+eiQ3LHdxkJhHNsr9s59cux oxo+CI/bM6Vn0HR4c1Q326aG/7gs0GQd4D6nx9uAhUhI2SDxxLVpitTPGLRjo51j BJesYdSnVPX0cMbj4L3I =+xYY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Odd, Arch uses SysV's init, but it certainly doesn't have a SysVinit init system. It's much closer to BSD, and a lot of the tools we use are custom. I know, and it's not necessarily bad. I find OpenBSDs to be brilliantly straight forward. Part of that might be because there are no symlinks because there is just single or normal mode which makes more sense to me, (especially on arch) rather than many runlevels on a pre configured desktop system like redhat. Perhaps a conundrum for the goal of a universal initialisation interface. Others include OpenRC (used by Gentoo), Upstart (used by Ubuntu) and of course systemd (used by Fedora) I must admit that I didn't use OpenRC and Upstart, yet. I switch to Arch right before OpenRC was introduced in Gentoo. I tried Alpine before arch and I believe that uses OpenRC as it is based on gentoo. I'd currently have less concerns running that than systemd but it was a little more fiddly than Arches interface and to add custom scripts too. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Martin Cigorraga m...@archlinux.us writes: Ugly hacks are a fact in sysadmins life and it will not prevent me from sleep like a baby :) In fact, at some point you realize that while there are a lot of beautiful and clean systems, a lot of our entire computing stack is ugly hacks on top of ugly hacks ;) -- Jeremiah Dodds github: https://github.com/jdodds irc : exhortatory
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Jeremiah Dodds jeremiah.do...@gmail.com wrote: Martin Cigorraga m...@archlinux.us writes: Ugly hacks are a fact in sysadmins life and it will not prevent me from sleep like a baby :) In fact, at some point you realize that while there are a lot of beautiful and clean systems, a lot of our entire computing stack is ugly hacks on top of ugly hacks ;) And we get used to our particular ugly hack and then complain like hell when someone wants to take that ugly hack away and replace it by an unknown (and possibly/probably ugly as well) hack.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 26 July 2012 16:08, Jeremiah Dodds jeremiah.do...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, at some point you realize that while there are a lot of beautiful and clean systems, a lot of our entire computing stack is ugly hacks on top of ugly And we get used to our particular ugly hack and then complain like hell when someone wants to take that ugly hack away and replace it by an unknown (and possibly/probably ugly as well) hack. Lol, totally true guys, let's assume it: we all like ugly hacks and do dirty things =D -- -msx
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
My 1.2 pence: I would prefer that rc.conf is kept as one file, or at least do it well. W dniu wtorek, 24 lipca 2012 użytkownik Gaetan Bisson napisał: [2012-07-24 16:07:50 +0200] Heiko Baums: Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. Everything is and should stay a file, and every tool should do only one task but this should be done well. How about having multiple files, each doing one thing and doing it well? Wait, isn't that exactly what systemd does? This is, btw., also the KISS philosophy. Any more platitudes coming? My /dev/null is feeling a bit empty. -- Gaetan -- --- *VOT Productions* *iRobosoft*: Owner irobosoft.weebly.com
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I wonder if ArmArch will run systemd. ArchLinux ARM ships systemd, just like we do. On my ARM machine (a Raspberry Pi running ArchLinux ARM) I use it, and as I mentioned it works great. indeed, i also run it on my Sheevaplug and more recently Pandaboard -- my new toy :-) to reiterate the above ... it works fantastic. the Pandaboard runs 9 custom unit files (1/2 of which are just mods to the shipped unit files): u.dhcpd4.service u.dnsmasq.service u.fwknopd.service u.hostapd.service iptables.service u.net.dhcp@.service u.net.static@.service u.openvpn.service (writing now :-) u.services.target ... and combined with 2 custom mkinitcpio hooks (to autogenerate uImage/uInitrd files) every single aspect of the system is fully managed. and ALL units, together, sans comments and empty lines, total a whopping 97 lines ... by comparison, the iptables and dnsmasq rc.d scripts over 60 lines EACH. on this system, all systemd processes are using less memory than ntpd, sshd, rsyslog, bash, dhcpd ... in fact it's among the lightest of them all. it's barely using more than TOP! bang. systemd++ -- C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 07:51 +0200, okra...@arcor.de wrote: Bad programming is the most favorite answer, and totally nonsense. The registry just gets bigger and bigger and is totally cryptic. And the registry is one of the most frequent reasons for system crashes and instabilities. And it's the most frequent reason why Windoze regularly (usually every 3 months) needs to be reinstalled. Heiko Hello Heiko, this is simply not true. First of all, starting with Windows XP the stability of Windows (yes, Windows, not Windoze) got much better and there are very few crashes which are mostly related to driver issues, IMO. Secondly, Windows doesn't need to be reinstalled every 3 months. Come on, most companies use Windows on their desktops and they don't need to reinstall them every 3 months. And their employees actually can work with their computers. And i don't say this because i like Windows but because i'm realistic and not unfair. I don't live in a world where one system is perfect and the others are all completely crap. If you think that Windows is completely bad then you're not professional. BTW: pacman.conf is written in an ini-style as well. Greetings, Oliver Is there the need to talk about Windows? XP is stable, just most XP users are unexperienced, so they break their XPs, but for such computer users a Linux won't work, since it needs too much tweaking to get a Linux run, hence a borked XP anyway is better than a Linux that completely doesn't work. However, XP will be dropped soon. Or is it already dropped by Microsoft? Btw. 98SE already is stable. Newer Windows might be unstable, I dunno. For me it's important that Microsoft and Apple are unethical companies. Unfortunately XP doesn't run that good on VBox and I'm not willing to install it directly to my computer again. But we should keep in mind, that some software only is available for Microsoft and Apple. And how many users are willing to stand the roughness and all the rules of Linux communities? There are also such forums for Windows, but you also will find many forums where old women are allowed to ask the same stupid questions again and again and even top posting and HTML for emails are allowed. Registry indeed is a PITA, however, on Linux we've got pulseaudio, KDE4 GNOME3. Who cares? Comparing OS is useless. Splitting /etc/rc.conf has less to do with something Windows-like.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 25-07-2012 09:44, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: then systemd creates some symlinks of files into another directory whose name is also totally cryptic, at least way to long. This is a total mess, if this is really true, and it's absolutely a step towards a second Windoze. This is systemd internals. It's not expected from the user to play with symlinks. But if for some reason something is causing a kernel panic during boot I sure want to have the possibility of easily disabling it and not rely on some tool that may or may not work at the time. On another note, the same goes for text based configuration files, I prefer simple text based files since they can be easily understood, viewed and edited with simple tools available in every live media. As for splitting rc.conf I have mixed feelings about it, it used to be _the_ place to go for changing most system settings, but then again some system settings always had a separate configuration file. If the split will bring more flexibility and helps to avoid having to hack things with user written scripts then maybe it's for the better. -- Mauro Santos
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:22:28 +0200 schrieb Nelson Marambio nelsonmaram...@gmx.de: that is / was right for Win 98 or Win ME. Having an exception error which was caused by damaged registry files always meant a reset to state short after the OS-installation, so all the drivers and programs had to be re-installed. But my XP-Installation ran more than five years stable though being stressed by many test-installations of applications. Does not mean that XP or Win 7 is going to make an admin feel happy - but yes, there was an improvement, at least for the users. But that was not such an improvement, maybe Windoze XP ran slightly longer than 3 months. But it's still not what I call stable. And it still is a PITA, particularly when it comes to administration. And it still gets unstable because of the (more and more growing) registry. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:44:34 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht nsebre...@piing.fr: I can find anything in systemd which could make think of the registry on Windows. I didn't say that. You are mixing up two things: - adding/removing services on boot; - configuring the services. The first - adding/removing services - changes with systemd. Yes, it is done using a dedicated command (which comes naturally with autocompletion, here with zsh at least). This is for services provided by the distribution. And this is against UNIX philosophy and makes it like something proprietary, at least it's anything else than comfortable. Why not just using a simple text file where I can list every service that I want to have started? systemd could easily read this file and do whatever it thinks to have been done internally. Btw., it's called daemon in Linux and UNIX. It's called service in Windoze. So one more step towards a second Windoze. The naming scheme in systemd is also not really the best. If people want a second Windoze they should stay with Windoze or help to improve ReactOS. If a service is not provided: - with SysVinit you have to write the whole script usually relying on whatever library the distribution provides (which tend to be error-prone); - with systemd, you just write a configuration file. Writing such a whole script is usually very easy and pretty little error-prone. A configuration file can also be pretty inconvenient. I haven't yet tested systemd, but from what I saw so far it doesn't look too intuitive or easy. But maybe I'm wrong in this case. Why do I have to tell systemd in all of those init scripts what service has to run before or after this service? In DAEMONS in rc.conf I just have a list of daemons I want to have started in one single line. And the order in which they have to be started is the order in which I list those daemons. Just plain and simple, and can easily be parsed. For the second, whether you use systemd or SysVinit, configuring a service is typically done by editing the configuration file dedicated to this service. In systemd, the file is declared like this EnvironmentFile=/etc/conf.d/nfs which is by itself much easier to hack (rather than reading in a shell script to find where and how such a file is used). You really don't need to read in a shell script to find where and how a config file is used. With SysVinit you have a rc script in /etc/rc.d and the corresponding config file in /etc/conf.d, both have the same name and the config files are usually very well documented, either by comments or by a man page. And what's hard in reading a very short init script with only a few lines? Btw., most lines are always the same (function declarations, case structures, etc.). The only important part is usually only one line. This is systemd internals. It's not expected from the user to play with symlinks. Just like in proprietary software. Once again: Why does it need such symlinks in some cryptic directories? The point is, I want to have full control over my system and not to rely on some software's internals. And I don't want to read source codes to know what an init system is doing. And full control includes knowing what file is saved where and doing what. No, I won't assume something that the software is going wrong. I assume the change raise fear, whether it is well-founded or not. Wrong, if there's such a long discussion, there is something going pretty wrong. If this software would be that well-founded, nobody had a problem with it, nobody would fear anything, and there would only be a very short discussion. Someone asks or mentions his concerns, somebody else clarifies it, and everything is good. This is not the case with Poetterix. And like I said before, I never - never ever - saw such a long discussion and so many concerns about a software like I saw for PulseAudio and systemd. So something must go pretty wrong in this case. This software can't be so well-founded. The people who are discussing about it, who have concerns against it and/or don't like systemd are not all stupid. OTOH for the systemd case, we are changing of paradigm for the boot process. I'm not aware of such a change in the boot process for years. All recent event-based init systems have raise fear. Which init systems? I only know SysVinit. And why wasn't there a change for years? Actually there was never a change. Because this init system is so bad? I would rather say because it's so well tested and approved, and because it's simple and just works and does what it is supposed to do. Maybe there are things that can be improved. Maybe there is code which has to be written or executed more than once with SysVinit. Well, this could be changed and improved. If this justifies a complete new init system is questionable I think. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:51:15 +0200 (CEST) schrieb okra...@arcor.de: this is simply not true. Sorry, but this is simply true. I know Windoze XP and I had to use it long enough, far too long. First of all, starting with Windows XP the stability of Windows (yes, Windows, not Windoze) got much better and there are very few crashes which are mostly related to driver issues, IMO. Much better? Slightly better! And, yes, Windoze. Secondly, Windows doesn't need to be reinstalled every 3 months. Come on, most companies use Windows on their desktops and they don't need to reinstall them every 3 months. And their employees actually can work with their computers. I used Windoze long enough. And I had to reinstall it every 3 months, and I know a lot of people who also had to do it this often. Since Windoze XP it was maybe not every 3 months anymore, but still often enough. And i don't say this because i like Windows but because i'm realistic and not unfair. I don't live in a world where one system is perfect and the others are all completely crap. If you think that Windows is completely bad then you're not professional. I am realistic and professional, because I speak from experience, like I said before more than 25 years. Windoze is completely bad. Otherwise I wouldn't get fits of raving madness every time I have to work with this crap, which is fortunately not too often anymore. BTW: pacman.conf is written in an ini-style as well. Not really. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht nsebre...@piing.fr wrote: The 25/07/12, Heiko Baums wrote: systemd I have to run a special command to have a daemon started at boot time (which I additionally have to remember), I have to write such an ini file instead of just writing or editing a simple and small config file or shell script You are mixing up two things: - adding/removing services on boot; - configuring the services. The first - adding/removing services - changes with systemd. Yes, it is done using a dedicated command (which comes naturally with autocompletion, here with zsh at least). This is for services provided by the distribution. If a service is not provided: - with SysVinit you have to write the whole script usually relying on whatever library the distribution provides (which tend to be error-prone); - with systemd, you just write a configuration file. For the second, whether you use systemd or SysVinit, configuring a service is typically done by editing the configuration file dedicated to this service. In systemd, the file is declared like this EnvironmentFile=/etc/conf.d/nfs which is by itself much easier to hack (rather than reading in a shell script to find where and how such a file is used). ... and to elaborate on this, writing a unit file is not the end of the world. in fact, it's so !@%$ing painless that i literally bang one out in ~2 minutes flat (not an exaggeration). 100% TANGIBLE, CONCRETE, NON-HYPOTHETICAL example ... i wrote this in a ~2 minute period sometime between the now and my last message h, 45 min ago: # cat /usr/lib/systemd/system/u.openvpn.service = [Unit] Description=[u] OpenVPN server After=network.target [Service] Type=simple TimeoutSec=0 Restart=always RestartSec=30 ExecStart=/usr/sbin/openvpn --config /etc/openvpn/u.openvpn.conf ExecStartPost=/usr/sbin/ip link set vpn0 up promisc on master lan0 ExecReload=/bin/kill -SIGUSR1 $MAINPID [Install] WantedBy=u.services.target = ... nd done. works bomb. linked to my custom target. automatic reloads. dynamic TAP device. automatic adding of TAP dev to existing bridge. works bomb? :-) but anthony! what did it REALLY take?, one likely inquires ... well i'm glad you asked! procedure: - copy one of my other daemon unit files - change ~3 lines - declare masterpiece ... there is no way to convince me or anyone else that process is somehow *more* complex than editing/managing the ~83-line combined `openvpn` and `openvpn-tapdev` rc.d scripts ... ehm ... hi. i have zilch against sysvinit, initscripts, or anything else for that matter -- to have a persuasion for-or-against a piece of software on anything but technical merits is rather silly IMO, even your own -- but to put it bluntly, systemd is, hands-down, superior, and a win in all ways over the long standing sysvinit ... just let it be so friends. -- C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
2012/7/24 Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no: It is based on the desktop-entry-spec: http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/, which in turn is (as far as I know) based on Window's .ini format. This is true: http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/systemd.unit.html. It could be worse; those ini-style files are just plain text key-value store sometimes splited in groups. I understand concept of ini files carry some historical baggage, but come on, everything will be OK as long as those keys and groups (and possible values...) are well documented in manual. -- Krzysztof Warzecha
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:14:57AM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote: I used Windoze long enough. And I had to reinstall it every 3 months, and I know a lot of people who also had to do it this often. Since Windoze XP it was maybe not every 3 months anymore, but still often enough. I am realistic and professional, because I speak from experience, like I said before more than 25 years. Windoze is completely bad. Otherwise I wouldn't get fits of raving madness every time I have to work with this crap, which is fortunately not too often anymore. I don't want to talk about Windows any longer because it is OT. I just wanted to correct some clearly wrong statements of you. Maybe you should reconsider your Windows administration skills if you need to reinstall every 3 months. BTW: pacman.conf is written in an ini-style as well. Not really. Core syntax: [Sectionname] key=value Why is that not ini-style? Greetings, Oliver
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 13:05 +0200, Oliver Kraitschy wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:14:57AM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote: I am realistic and professional, because I speak from experience, like I said before more than 25 years. If the next employer you'll make an application should read this, you was an professional. I don't want to talk about Windows any longer because it is OT. That would be nice :)
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 13:18 +0200, Oliver Kraitschy wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:20:57AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Is there the need to talk about Windows? XP is stable, just most XP users are unexperienced, so they break their XPs, but for such computer users a Linux won't work, since it needs too much tweaking to get a Linux run, hence a borked XP anyway is better than a Linux that completely doesn't work. However, XP will be dropped soon. Or is it already dropped by Microsoft? Btw. 98SE already is stable. Newer Windows might be unstable, I dunno. For me it's important that Microsoft and Apple are unethical companies. Unfortunately XP doesn't run that good on VBox and I'm not willing to install it directly to my computer again. But we should keep in mind, that some software only is available for Microsoft and Apple. And how many users are willing to stand the roughness and all the rules of Linux communities? There are also such forums for Windows, but you also will find many forums where old women are allowed to ask the same stupid questions again and again and even top posting and HTML for emails are allowed. Registry indeed is a PITA, however, on Linux we've got pulseaudio, KDE4 GNOME3. Who cares? Comparing OS is useless. Splitting /etc/rc.conf has less to do with something Windows-like. Hello Ralf, sorry, i just wanted to correct some statements which are simply not correct and just OS bashing. Greetings, Oliver I understand Heiko and I understand you. Comparing OS as examples, to what could happen, sometimes could be helpful. Correcting mistakes then also could be useful.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 07/25/12 at 01:47am, C Anthony Risinger wrote: to reiterate the above ... it works fantastic. the Pandaboard runs 9 custom unit files (1/2 of which are just mods to the shipped unit files): u.dhcpd4.service u.dnsmasq.service u.fwknopd.service u.hostapd.service iptables.service u.net.dhcp@.service u.net.static@.service u.openvpn.service (writing now :-) u.services.target What does u.net.static@.service do? If something similar to ifplugd, I'm interested :) Manolo
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 25/07/2012 5:54 AM, Heiko Baums wrote: [snip] Why do I have to tell systemd in all of those init scripts what service has to run before or after this service? In DAEMONS in rc.conf I just have a list of daemons I want to have started in one single line. And the order in which they have to be started is the order in which I list those daemons. Just plain and simple, and can easily be parsed. This DAEMONS array is nice, one of the things I like about Arch, but it is specific to Arch not SysV. If you run Gentoo, or others you won't have something like that, you'll have a program that arranges symlinks, not entirely unlike systemd. Why you would want to specify which services had to come before or after which other services is obvious when you consider that systemd boots services in parallel. There is no way in the current system, and no way without specifying, to boot several daemons at the same time and then boot other daemons afterwards that depend on them having completely launched. Similarly with devices being available. This is why people have to put in ugly hacks like sleep in daemons that require the network to be up. You really don't need to read in a shell script to find where and how a config file is used. With SysVinit you have a rc script in /etc/rc.d and the corresponding config file in /etc/conf.d, both have the same name and the config files are usually very well documented, either by comments or by a man page. And what's hard in reading a very short init script with only a few lines? Btw., most lines are always the same (function declarations, case structures, etc.). The only important part is usually only one line. This is systemd internals. It's not expected from the user to play with symlinks. Just like in proprietary software. Once again: Why does it need such symlinks in some cryptic directories? The point is, I want to have full control over my system and not to rely on some software's internals. And I don't want to read source codes to know what an init system is doing. And full control includes knowing what file is saved where and doing what. OTOH for the systemd case, we are changing of paradigm for the boot process. I'm not aware of such a change in the boot process for years. All recent event-based init systems have raise fear. Which init systems? I only know SysVinit. And why wasn't there a change for years? Actually there was never a change. Because this init system is so bad? I would rather say because it's so well tested and approved, and because it's simple and just works and does what it is supposed to do. Odd, Arch uses SysV's init, but it certainly doesn't have a SysVinit init system. It's much closer to BSD, and a lot of the tools we use are custom. Others include OpenRC (used by Gentoo), Upstart (used by Ubuntu) and of course systemd (used by Fedora) Maybe there are things that can be improved. Maybe there is code which has to be written or executed more than once with SysVinit. Well, this could be changed and improved. If this justifies a complete new init system is questionable I think. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Manolo Martínez man...@austrohungaro.com wrote: On 07/25/12 at 01:47am, C Anthony Risinger wrote: to reiterate the above ... it works fantastic. the Pandaboard runs 9 custom unit files (1/2 of which are just mods to the shipped unit files): u.dhcpd4.service u.dnsmasq.service u.fwknopd.service u.hostapd.service iptables.service u.net.dhcp@.service u.net.static@.service u.openvpn.service (writing now :-) u.services.target What does u.net.static@.service do? If something similar to ifplugd, I'm interested :) i haven't used ifplugd before so i'm not 100% sure how it all compares, but basically this unit file is linked directly to a network device -- ie. the existence of the device itself is what triggers it. the unit is also bound to the device, so if it disappears (unplugged, whatever) then the unit is also deactivated/shutdown (kill dhcp/etc). i conveniently just pasted/explained these files in another thread: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-July/028656.html ... take a look :-) im trying to find ways to make them more flexible, but the important bit is the: sys-subsystem-net-devices-lan0.device.wants/[...] ... which says when device `lan0` shows up, trigger [...] NOTE: archive is mangling the email addresses, use paste instead: http://dpaste.com/775183/ -- C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Why you would want to specify which services had to come before or after which other services is obvious when you consider that systemd boots services in parallel. There is no way in the current system, and no way without specifying, to boot several daemons at the same time and then boot other daemons afterwards Maybe you could be clearer because scripting is almost boundless. Performance sensitive apps may require perl, C, assembly or hardware driven systems of course. The issue to me begins with whatever requires systemd be so large to start with and not be started by a script or init to begin with. There are plenty of languages with concurrency. personally I will obviously keep tabs on how systemd evolves but currently it's not a glove that fits for us all, thankfully that's not required to run arch easily yet. that depend on them having completely launched. In the interests of learning for my scripts and hopefully without leading the witnesses who may badger Tom? I'm interested to know how systemd knows universally that a service is completely launched ignoring that daemons themselves don't always know? I'm surprised people are still coming out with it is obviously far superior in every way. Change it to many ways atleast, please. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Hello Heiko, this is simply not true. First of all, starting with Windows XP the stability of Windows (yes, Windows, not Windoze) got much better and there are very few crashes which are mostly related to driver issues, IMO. Incidentally, I installed a fresh XP a couple of weeks ago. The system had some sort of IDE cable problem that Linux tolerated. I finally got XP updated and ready to backup and after a reboot a message like. One of your registry files got corrupted and has been recovered with a backup. Nothing in task bar, start menu empty, various other problems. Why should one corrupted file damage so much but you also hope for a concise universal interface with the opposite seeming to come along more often. Try getting Gnome3 to not raise a window on click, it's easier but still problematic to get it to not raise a window on focus. Secondly, Windows doesn't need to be reinstalled every 3 months. Come on, most companies use Windows on their desktops and they don't need to reinstall them every 3 months. And their employees actually can work with their computers. You can't argue that it won't have slowed down all by itself. Some blame temp files, MFT, hidden malware your AV can't find but the registry can certainly take some blame, isn't a universal interface and has configuration strewn all over the place under hex codes needing deciphered that are as bad as some of the error messages. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
If a service is not provided: - with SysVinit you have to write the whole script usually relying on whatever library the distribution provides (which tend to be error-prone); - with systemd, you just write a configuration file. Well arch has some includes to make it prettier. On OpenBSD you have in rc.conf.local sshd=YES or sshd=-f /etc/sshdconfishere or in rc.local sshd echo sshd started successfully This also demonstrates how easy shell can be to users and is a very good encouragement to get users hacking or more importantly in complete control. And now package provided ones in rc.d which I have never actually needed to use on servers or desktops. In fact I love that my systems aren't sending packets I haven't told them to, except my Android and TVs and Cisco router which I sold after fixing that and would have been glad I did if I had ever put it online as exploits were found in the source of those packets. For the second, whether you use systemd or SysVinit, configuring a service is typically done by editing the configuration file dedicated to this service. In systemd, the file is declared like this EnvironmentFile=/etc/conf.d/nfs which is by itself much easier to hack (rather than reading in a shell script to find where and how such a file is used). Because that is so much clearer than a -f flag rightly in control of the daemons developer and in plain logical sight in the daemons man page or config file. then systemd creates some symlinks of files into another directory whose name is also totally cryptic, at least way to long. This is a total mess, if this is really true, and it's absolutely a step towards a second Windoze. This is systemd internals. It's not expected from the user to play with symlinks. I found via Google that I had to to setup my ttys with autologin and logs etc.. I restate One of the founding principles of UNIX is that small tools that do a single job well allow complete flexibility whereas large tools do what the devs foresee very well but will likely hinder users or the unforeseen uses (hacking). -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
The 24/07/12, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that reviewing the config files and getting the source and finding the bug in C is much easier of course and can be fixed immediately by anyone without another OS or machine. Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that when a service is failing, everybody first think it's because of the init process and try to fix the bug in the /sbin/init C sources. It's funny how you think init which was designed to be as simple as possible is likely to have as many bugs as systemd. It's funny how you think init scripts ― without consistant/sensible design over them, not deployed as widely as systemd and touched by so many people ― are likely to have as many bugs as systemd. No one thinks many init systems are better than a couple possibly with a universal interface. (competition being healthy) -- Nicolas Sebrecht -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
The 24/07/12, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that reviewing the config files and getting the source and finding the bug in C is much easier of course and can be fixed immediately by anyone without another OS or machine. Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that when a service is failing, everybody first think it's because of the init process and try to fix the bug in the /sbin/init C sources. It's funny how you think init which was designed to be as simple as possible is likely to have as many bugs as systemd. It's funny how you think init scripts ― without consistant/sensible design over them, not deployed as widely as systemd and touched by so many people ― are likely to have as many bugs as systemd. No one thinks many init systems are better than a couple possibly with a universal interface. (competition being healthy) -- Nicolas Sebrecht -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Jul 25, 2012 6:14 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Why you would want to specify which services had to come before or after which other services is obvious when you consider that systemd boots services in parallel. There is no way in the current system, and no way without specifying, to boot several daemons at the same time and then boot other daemons afterwards Maybe you could be clearer because scripting is almost boundless. There is no way to specify in DAEMONS that syslog-ng and dbus should be started in parallel, and only when they are both up and running should network manager be started. that depend on them having completely launched. In the interests of learning for my scripts and hopefully without leading the witnesses who may badger Tom? I'm interested to know how systemd knows universally that a service is completely launched ignoring that daemons themselves don't always know? A well written sysv daemon should only double fork once it is 'ready'. initscripts relies on this behaviour already (that is how we know when to start the 'next' daemon from the DAEMONS array). Systemd can either use this mechanism (Type= forking) or one of several other ones. That said, there its no magic: if the daemon does not know, then systemd does not know. Cheers, Tom
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Maybe you could be clearer because scripting is almost boundless. There is no way to specify in DAEMONS that syslog-ng and dbus should be started in parallel, and only when they are both up and running should network manager be started. Personally I don't care about shaving a second or two but the simplest config change could be. DAEMONS=syslog-ng(3), dbus(3), network-manager(4) that depend on them having completely launched. In the interests of learning for my scripts and hopefully without leading the witnesses who may badger Tom? I'm interested to know how systemd knows universally that a service is completely launched ignoring that daemons themselves don't always know? A well written sysv daemon should only double fork once it is 'ready'. initscripts relies on this behaviour already (that is how we know when to start the 'next' daemon from the DAEMONS array). Systemd can either use this mechanism (Type= forking) or one of several other ones. That said, there its no magic: if the daemon does not know, then systemd does not know. Thanks -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:05:37 -0400 schrieb Stephen E. Baker baker.stephe...@gmail.com: This DAEMONS array is nice, one of the things I like about Arch, but it is specific to Arch not SysV. If you run Gentoo, or others you won't have something like that, you'll have a program that arranges symlinks, not entirely unlike systemd. Well, yes. I guess you're right, at least somehow. It's long ago that I switched from Gentoo to Arch. Nevertheless I'm not quite sure if systemd does the same as Gentoo does. At least Gentoo does this with shell scripts. But I still had no time to read the links about systemd, Tom posted recently. Why you would want to specify which services had to come before or after which other services is obvious when you consider that systemd boots services in parallel. Principally right again. But I have a problem with booting daemons in parallel, on Gentoo as well as on Arch. Made several problems. But I can't tell anymore which. So I prefer booting in serial, even if it's slower. If I recall correctly this was also one of Arch's advantages over Gentoo that I just could add the daemons to the DAEMONS array in rc.conf and choose the order myself. Odd, Arch uses SysV's init, but it certainly doesn't have a SysVinit init system. It's much closer to BSD, and a lot of the tools we use are custom. I know, and it's not necessarily bad. Others include OpenRC (used by Gentoo), Upstart (used by Ubuntu) and of course systemd (used by Fedora) I must admit that I didn't use OpenRC and Upstart, yet. I switch to Arch right before OpenRC was introduced in Gentoo. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht nsebre...@piing.fr wrote: The 23/07/12, Kevin Chadwick wrote: Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that reviewing the config files and getting the source and finding the bug in C is much easier of course and can be fixed immediately by anyone without another OS or machine. Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that when a service is failing, everybody first think it's because of the init process and try to fix the bug in the /sbin/init C sources. Its a common fallacy some seem to hold that the only way to fix/debug/customize systemd is to edit the sources. Obviously those who believe so have no idea what .service files are.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 04:54:08 +0200, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia archli...@ishpeck.net wrote: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 05:57:46PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: Is debian switching That remains to be seen. If Debian intends to continue support for Hurd and KfreeBSD they can't move to systemd -- which relies on Linux kernel features to work. That debian has a disincentive is not the same as Arch having a disincentive, tho'. I would rather we use DJB's daemontools as process 1 but I know exactly how these arguments tend to go. http://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installation We talked about it on Debian mailing list, IICR Debian will switch, but I might be mistaken. - Ralf
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Systemd is larger than init, so for embedded it may well quadruple boot time. What utter bullshit. Please, Kevin, if you are going to throw around numbers, do some measurements first. You keep picking on other subjects too at one tiny part without considering all that I have said. /sbin/init 32K actually larger than I thought considering it's job was designed so tightly bound. /bin/systemd 800K (26 times as large) I have an embedded board sitting right here that can run Linux and has 64K of SRAM by default. As I have said you are talking about Linux systems that are nearer the top smaller end of the embedded and actually my Android probably takes longer to boot than my desktop, maybe when I get time as Sony aren't providing updates as they promised I will mod cyanogen to boot a bit quicker or stop it slowing down further if systemd lands with a simple init. My real point was that the systemd speed argument was pointless and the bloated argument in violation of UNIX principles wasn't. There is nothing stopping building concurrency on top of init like Upstart which obviously has major issues. Do you have any numbers on how much time it saves you. I know Gnome takes many many times longer to load than systemd saves! -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Hi, Am 23.07.2012 17:29, schrieb Kevin Chadwick: Tested, simply sophisticated and as fast as you make it. There is no parallelization, no socket activation and no auto mounting. In no way can it be as fast as systemd. init=/bin/sh That happens a lot in embedded. Once you get to desktop level and SSDs, who cares about a few seconds. It's not only about speed, but speed is a nice bonus. Its also about reliability. But I'm not going to enumerate the advantages of systemd over and over again. Just read the blog posts by Lennart ;). That is completely debateable. I hope you look at counter arguments too. I like what systemd does in code in the main. I just think it needs a re-design to be more usable on the commandline and be more modular so pid1 is small if it cannot stay as init. The fastest booting systems ( 1 second) use init and won't use systemd. Which systems do you have in mind? Personally I can tell you out of experience that my system boots up faster with systemd. Low memory embedded devices such as an mp3 player. I would also rather desktop and embedded systems shared pid1 as a simple init like upstart does. WRT pulse audio it won't run under a grsecurity kernel so first I'd say define modern desktop. How functional, how secure. On a modern desktop you probably have bigger concerns regarding security then running grsecurity. That said it should run fine with SElinux, which Fedora is using by default. Furthermore grsecurity seems to focus on servers anyway, so I'm not sure why you even bring this up? Not really, it is used less on desktops because more code like Adobe Flash breaks without intervention. My Arch desktops run grsecurity kernels. Best regards, Karol Babioch -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that reviewing the config files and getting the source and finding the bug in C is much easier of course and can be fixed immediately by anyone without another OS or machine. Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that when a service is failing, everybody first think it's because of the init process and try to fix the bug in the /sbin/init C sources. It's funny how you think init which was designed to be as simple as possible is likely to have as many bugs as systemd. You can batch test a group of scripts quickly if you have to fall back to trial and error. Cross platform peer reviewed scripts would be good of course. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
For having used systemd myself, I am inclined to believe that it definitely fits the KISS principle. I welcome the coss platform GUI for controlling services, however on Arch rc.conf served very well. I found I can see /etc/inittab and man inittab and edit. With systemd I had to Google then type lots to Copy and symlink. It's also harder to see what will run without booting said hardrive and the output of systemctl makes it harder to see what services are enabled in a single glance with all the other info provided but I'm sure that can easily be fixed, though I didn't see the commandline argument required. The main thing I would like to know is Will the DAEMONS line always stay in rc.conf or will there be a single folder where we can see just the service enabling files. The KISS part I am mainly concerned about is the more complicated nature of systemd that will innevitably lead to root exploits needlessly on simple systems. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that reviewing the config files and getting the source and finding the bug in C is much easier of course and can be fixed immediately by anyone without another OS or machine. Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that when a service is failing, everybody first think it's because of the init process and try to fix the bug in the /sbin/init C sources. Its a common fallacy some seem to hold that the only way to fix/debug/customize systemd is to edit the sources. Obviously those who believe so have no idea what .service files are. I never said that, there is 800K of systemd to cause havoc that is harder to test because it doesn't follow UNIX principles. You would have to incorporate all code init can run in that. I like some of systemd and an init consensus but it should have been developed as many tools. Maybe systemds features were required to make this happen and a init system with standardised scripts will finally come along and fix this problem that has plagued Linux for so long. Unfortunately it just might mean many will move back to Gentoo/Slackware or another BSD like OS. One of the founding principles of UNIX is that small tools that do a single job well allow complete flexibility whereas large tools do what the devs foresee very well but will likely hinder users or other uses. That is a part of why I prefer sudo and RBAC/Selinux to polkit. Maybe systemd doesn't hinder in this way but I'm sure it reduces re-use of it's tools for other purposes and affects security that this methodology has always brought. I can't find the book referencing many highly regarded peers right now to word it perfectly but Ironically this principle has been seen to reduce UNIX use by the masses due to the potential for variation but also means it has had technologies that never die out and especially useful for the slightly skilled users. I didn't think Arch was trying to be a Redhat for the masses. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Couldn't have said it better. I'm not by any means a technical expert, but even I could see how much basis his posts had (or didn't) Those posts were simply pointing out errors/assumptions in baseless posts and you may not see my points if you haven't done any research on the foundations of UNIX and/or security. It is easy to sell functions like it's faster even when it is irrelevent. Security is only considered in General when your bank is on the phone and for a few weeks after. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
[2012-07-24 13:27:50 +0100] Kevin Chadwick: you may not see my points if you haven't done any research on the foundations of UNIX and/or security. How more ridiculous can you get? -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 07/24/2012 08:37 AM, Gaetan Bisson wrote: [2012-07-24 13:27:50 +0100] Kevin Chadwick: you may not see my points if you haven't done any research on the foundations of UNIX and/or security. How more ridiculous can you get? He is not being ridiculous. He is stating his opinion and that should be valuedIt is easy to dismiss someones opinion but hard or complex to analyze. His insight may keep one from doing something stupid simply because he has looked at the problem from a different light and that should be valued. His view does have merit.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 07/24/2012 09:09 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Systemd is larger than init, so for embedded it may well quadruple boot time. What utter bullshit. Please, Kevin, if you are going to throw around numbers, do some measurements first. You keep picking on other subjects too at one tiny part without considering all that I have said. You win. I usually try to answer all emails aimed in my general direction, however with the last onslaught of spam from you, I just can't find it in me any more. Anyone with the least bit of clue will by now have realised that you don't know what you are talking about. So anything I add will just be a waste of everyone's time. -t I am sorry you think any thing you have will be a waste of time. I am looking at this problem of moving to systemd, staying with current init scripts or moving in the LSB init scripts direction. In order for one to make an informed decision one needs to consider all the facts. Without your insight or wisdom how would/will I do that? Discussion is healthy
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
[2012-07-24 09:19:27 -0400] Baho Utot: He is stating his opinion and that should be valued Baseless opinions are not valuable, they are spam. His insight may keep one from doing something stupid simply because he has looked at the problem from a different light and that should be valued. I am very sorry that you were lead to think that. -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I am sorry you think any thing you have will be a waste of time. I am looking at this problem of moving to systemd, staying with current init scripts or moving in the LSB init scripts direction. In order for one to make an informed decision one needs to consider all the facts. Without your insight or wisdom how would/will I do that? Discussion is healthy I'm happy to discuss and answer any questions. However, Kevin's emails were: off-topic (this thread was not on systemd, but on rc.conf), irrelevant (the kind of embedded systems he is talking about would never run Arch), plain wrong (his descriptions of how systemd works and how to use it has nothing to do with reality). To give a couple of comments, for those who have not looked at systemd yet: Firstly, systemd is bigger and does more than sysvinit. The reason for this is that it moves functionality out of the individual daemons and into init. This functionality is stuff that would otherwise have been implemented over and over again in every daemon or rc script, each time it is implemented it would be a potential for bugs. Now we have it all in one place, where we can all work together to test and review it. The kind of features implemented in this way are for the purposes of security and reliability of the daemons on your system (i.e. it will monitor them and deal with crashes, it will lock down the kinds of things a daemon is allowed to do, what directories it can read/write to, what system calls it can make, what user it is run as, etc). I would not call this bloat, quite the opposite. It means that the total amount of code on your system, and the total amount of potential for bugs drastically decreases. Secondly, most of the functionality of systemd is separated out in separate processes/tools, and are not part of PID1. In fact, we use these tools also in initscripts, and this is why I believe we will be able to maintain initscripts, even if systemd should take over for most users. Initscripts currently use the following systemd tools: systemd-module-load systemd-udevd systemd-cryptsetup systemd-tmpfiles systemd-sysctl systemd-binfmt systemd-random-seed systemd-vconsole-setup systemd-remount-fs HTH, Tom
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:40:51 +1000 schrieb Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org: [2012-07-24 09:19:27 -0400] Baho Utot: He is stating his opinion and that should be valued Baseless opinions are not valuable, they are spam. Actually they are not baseless even if he didn't explain every single argument in detail. But I think e.g. regarding the UNIX philosophy he is totally right. And it actually shouldn't be necessary to explain in detail as the UNIX philosophy should be very well known anyway. Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. Everything is and should stay a file, and every tool should do only one task but this should be done well. This is, btw., also the KISS philosophy. I really regularly wonder why people become offensive if other people say their opinions and if other people's opinions doesn't match their own opinions. Well, yes, some of Kevin's e-mails have been a bit pointless. But he is not really spamming. He just says his opinion. And it doesn't seem to be unqualified. Btw., in all those discussions about systemd as well as in all those discussions about PulseAudio, I always read more or less technical arguments from people who have objections against them or have tried them and have seen that they don't really work. From the people who like systemd and/or PulseAudio I only read arguments like it's faster, it's an evolution, it's new, everybody (distribution) uses it, it has this and that feature, which actually only makes sense and works in a very few cases or can easily be achieved in other ways. But I haven't, yet, read any technical argument for them, why it is technically better, why it doesn't break the UNIX philosophy, why it is reliable enough etc. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:07:50 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de: Btw., in all those discussions about systemd as well as in all those discussions about PulseAudio, I always read more or less technical arguments from people who have objections against them or have tried them and have seen that they don't really work. From the people who like systemd and/or PulseAudio I only read arguments like it's faster, it's an evolution, it's new, everybody (distribution) uses it, it has this and that feature, which actually only makes sense and works in a very few cases or can easily be achieved in other ways. But I haven't, yet, read any technical argument for them, why it is technically better, why it doesn't break the UNIX philosophy, why it is reliable enough etc. Well, now I must correct myself. I just read Tom's explanation about some technical details of systemd. The first one so far, which clarifies it a bit. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
[2012-07-24 16:07:50 +0200] Heiko Baums: Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. Everything is and should stay a file, and every tool should do only one task but this should be done well. How about having multiple files, each doing one thing and doing it well? Wait, isn't that exactly what systemd does? This is, btw., also the KISS philosophy. Any more platitudes coming? My /dev/null is feeling a bit empty. -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: But I think e.g. regarding the UNIX philosophy he is totally right. And Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. Everything is and should stay a file, and every tool should do only one task but this should be done well. This is, btw., also the KISS philosophy. Talking about UNIX philosophy and Windoze like ini files is probably what gets some people going. It is not technical. Yeah, we might agree that UNIX is great and Windows is bad. But in a technical argument, it is just annoying to point to tradition and philosophy rather than technical facts, regardless of what side of the argument you are on. If you claim that systemd does not follow the UNIX philosophy (I disagree, but whatever), and if you claim that anything not following the UNIX philosophy is bad (I disagree, but whatever), then you should be able to combine these two claims and point to a technical flaw or shortcomming in systemd without any reference to UNIX, or Windows, or KISS at all. I really regularly wonder why people become offensive if other people say their opinions and if other people's opinions doesn't match their own opinions. Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There really is no excuse. I try not to be offensive, but sometimes my exasperation shows through I guess. -t
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There really is no excuse. Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3, I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do work not to tinker. I need it to just work and continue working in the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not like it. Calvin
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote: Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3, I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do work not to tinker. I need it to just work and continue working in the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not like it. I didn't mean to imply that everyone should learn about systemd. My comment was aimed at those who make claims about its benefits or drawbacks. -t
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Op dinsdag 24 juli 2012 10:29:25 schreef Calvin Morrison: Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There really is no excuse. Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3, I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do work not to tinker. I need it to just work and continue working in the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not like it. Calvin my 2cents on your usecase: Arch Linux is always the newest and latest and ... so maybe your use-case does not fit this distributions profile if you really want everything to stay the same forever there are distributions out there which fit your needs exactly, but in my idea Arch is not it. --Ike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 24 July 2012 10:43, Ike Devolder ike.devol...@gmail.com wrote: Op dinsdag 24 juli 2012 10:29:25 schreef Calvin Morrison: Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There really is no excuse. Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3, I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do work not to tinker. I need it to just work and continue working in the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not like it. Calvin my 2cents on your usecase: Arch Linux is always the newest and latest and ... so maybe your use-case does not fit this distributions profile if you really want everything to stay the same forever there are distributions out there which fit your needs exactly, but in my idea Arch is not it. --Ike To summarize: Arch Linux is a versatile, and simple distribution designed to fit the needs of the competent Linux® user. It is both powerful and easy to manage, making it an ideal distro for servers and workstations. Take it in any direction you like. If you share this vision of what a GNU/Linux distribution should be, then you are welcomed and encouraged to use it freely, get involved, and contribute to the community. Welcome to Arch! I have been using Arch since 2009. I like it a lot. It serves me very well :-) Calvin
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. I honestly don't know if this is serious. What is the difference between a key=value rc.conf and a key=value ini file of systemd? -- Mantas Mikulėnas
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am 7/24/2012 4:51 PM, schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote:
Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too.
I honestly don't know if this is serious. What is the difference
between a key=value rc.conf and a key=value ini file of systemd?
I think he refers to those sections: [Unit], [Service], [Install] and
whatnot, I have not explored all of those yet.
But, those are not Windows-like INI-Files. Those files are meant to be
following some XDG Desktop File Descripton Standard Whose Name I Not Now
(tm), making them easy parseable by existing libraries and programs that
implement this standard.
They are not enforced to be following this standard (show itself if you
have a type=forking .service and define multiple ExecStartPost sections
for instance), but are encouraged to be.
It's all in the documentation ;)
But yes, in the end all of those are key=value pairs.
--
AUR: kritztopf
BBS: kritter
#archlinux{,-offtopic}@freenode: kritztopf
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. I honestly don't know if this is serious. What is the difference between a key=value rc.conf and a key=value ini file of systemd? +1 I'm not a dev, but the ini files seem pretty user friendly - I liked them back on Windows too. I think maybe we should use our user pages in the wiki to put our thoughts into coherent writing, add links to back up our opinions etc. This could bring some order to the discussion, help dispelling myths and get rid oversimplifications.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Christoph Vigano m...@cvigano.de wrote: But, those are not Windows-like INI-Files. Those files are meant to be following some XDG Desktop File Descripton Standard Whose Name I Not Now (tm), making them easy parseable by existing libraries and programs that implement this standard. It is based on the desktop-entry-spec: http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/, which in turn is (as far as I know) based on Window's .ini format. -t
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:07:50 +0200 Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:40:51 +1000 schrieb Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org: Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. One thing I noticed is that the only people who usually bash Windows are those who don't develop or know very little about programming. What exactly is wrong with ini files and/or registry? Perhaps it is your misunderstanding... Over time various linux projects took a lot from windows: gconf/dconf (~registry), KDE4 indexing services (~superfetch/desktop indexing), systemd-journald (~windows event viewer). This is real, get used to it. -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Op dinsdag 24 juli 2012 10:51:05 schreef Calvin Morrison: On 24 July 2012 10:43, Ike Devolder ike.devol...@gmail.com wrote: Op dinsdag 24 juli 2012 10:29:25 schreef Calvin Morrison: Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There really is no excuse. Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3, I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do work not to tinker. I need it to just work and continue working in the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not like it. Calvin my 2cents on your usecase: Arch Linux is always the newest and latest and ... so maybe your use-case does not fit this distributions profile if you really want everything to stay the same forever there are distributions out there which fit your needs exactly, but in my idea Arch is not it. --Ike To summarize: Arch Linux is a versatile, and simple distribution designed to fit the needs of the competent Linux® user. It is both powerful and easy to manage, making it an ideal distro for servers and workstations. Take it in any direction you like. If you share this vision of what a GNU/Linux distribution should be, then you are welcomed and encouraged to use it freely, get involved, and contribute to the community. Welcome to Arch! I have been using Arch since 2009. I like it a lot. It serves me very well :-) Calvin well then i'm very ok with it :) --Ike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 24/07/2012 11:08 AM, Leonid Isaev wrote: On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:07:50 +0200 Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:40:51 +1000 schrieb Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org: Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. One thing I noticed is that the only people who usually bash Windows are those who don't develop or know very little about programming. What exactly is wrong with ini files and/or registry? Perhaps it is your misunderstanding... I assure you, lots of developers, even (or maybe especially) Windows developers bash windows. The key is not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Ini style files are both easy to parse and easy to read - there's no reason not to copy the format. Certainly these systemd target files etc. are easier to read and manage than the initscripts were. It may take some getting use to not being able to see everything in DAEMONS, but the benefits to the maintainers and to me if I ever need to tweak something beyond what gets run in what order, more than offset that. Over time various linux projects took a lot from windows: gconf/dconf (~registry), KDE4 indexing services (~superfetch/desktop indexing), systemd-journald (~windows event viewer). This is real, get used to it. The registry is more debatable. (Having all your config in one place is nice, but when that one place is an inconsistent mess that can only be managed by a mediocre special purpose tool it loses it's benefits.) I think I would be very upset if they wanted to move rc.conf into a gconf like interface. As is though I find it hard to complain. I generally like Windows events except for some of the pointless make work of registering each message ahead of time in your message.dll (which .NET hacks around). That said I've never had any issue with /var/log/*.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Christoph Vigano m...@cvigano.de wrote: Am 7/24/2012 4:51 PM, schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. I honestly don't know if this is serious. What is the difference between a key=value rc.conf and a key=value ini file of systemd? I think he refers to those sections: [Unit], [Service], [Install] and whatnot, I have not explored all of those yet. But, those are not Windows-like INI-Files. Those files are meant to be following some XDG Desktop File Descripton Standard Whose Name I Not Now (tm), making them easy parseable by existing libraries and programs that implement this standard. They are not enforced to be following this standard (show itself if you have a type=forking .service and define multiple ExecStartPost sections for instance), but are encouraged to be. It's all in the documentation ;) But yes, in the end all of those are key=value pairs. Just like our holy pacman.conf... -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html --- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 ---
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
What exactly is wrong with ini files and/or registry? Perhaps it is your misunderstanding... Oh please, if you ever dealt with windows registry then you know it's a totally disfunctional way to keep record of anything. Over time it gets oversized, filled with crap, slow and totally impractical, in one word: bloated, and please, while windows may implement one or two good ideas the underlying infraestructure is as much messy as is it's registry. -- -msx
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Baho Utot baho-u...@columbus.rr.com wrote: I am sorry you think any thing you have will be a waste of time. I am looking at this problem of moving to systemd, staying with current init scripts or moving in the LSB init scripts direction. In order for one to make an informed decision one needs to consider all the facts. Without your insight or wisdom how would/will I do that? Discussion is healthy I'm happy to discuss and answer any questions. However, Kevin's emails were: off-topic (this thread was not on systemd, but on rc.conf), irrelevant (the kind of embedded systems he is talking about would never run Arch), Well you brought them on topic by saying at some point we will have to embrace systemd and I wasn't the one who commented first. I wonder if ArmArch will run systemd. They may not run arch but they have code and scripts ported over. Of course those scripts can easily be wrote. Also with the 3.4 kernel recently getting NOMMU support. I hope desktop and embedded will get closer not further away. I also wonder if every original process is forked from systemd like init? Is it? Then does that mean a megabyte rather than 32k of memory is being copied even when transforming into other far smaller processes. That shouldn't go down well in any embedded world where ram may actually be a rom. To give a couple of comments, for those who have not looked at systemd yet: Firstly, systemd is bigger and does more than sysvinit. The reason for this is that it moves functionality out of the individual daemons and into init. This functionality is stuff that would otherwise have been implemented over and over again in every daemon or rc script, each time it is implemented it would be a potential for bugs. Now we have it all in one place, where we can all work together to test and review it. The kind of features implemented in this way are for the purposes of security and reliability of the daemons on your system (i.e. it will monitor them and deal with crashes, it will lock down the kinds of things a daemon is allowed to do, what directories it can read/write to, what system calls it can make, what user it is run as, etc). I would not call this bloat, quite the opposite. It means that the total amount of code on your system, and the total amount of potential for bugs drastically decreases. Secondly, most of the functionality of systemd is separated out in separate processes/tools, and are not part of PID1. In fact, we use these tools also in initscripts, and this is why I believe we will be able to maintain initscripts, even if systemd should take over for most users. Initscripts currently use the following systemd tools: systemd-module-load systemd-udevd systemd-cryptsetup systemd-tmpfiles systemd-sysctl systemd-binfmt systemd-random-seed systemd-vconsole-setup systemd-remount-fs HTH, Tom plain wrong (his descriptions of how systemd works and how to use it has nothing to do with reality). Please give references if you are going to flame me in future. I don't believe I described how systemd works or how to use it. I hope you don't mind me sharing part of a private mail. We seem to disagree on imposing limits onto the user and I assume init halting being good or bad and your comments at the bottom may also prevent anyone moving away from Arch. The point is that there is no limit to what you can put in rc.conf. That's the beauty of it and the essence of UNIX. Which yes has led to variation and perhaps difficulties for the mass market. Atleast systemd has led to the co-operation that may reduce this variation for init scripts users too. I'm sorry if I take this with a pinch of salt, but previous claims I have seen you make often prove to be unsubstantiated. In your opinion, many agree with me and moreso those who have a decent understanding of UNIX. No, not in my opinion. It is objective fact. You keep on making claims (such as A is more secure/smaller/faster/more accurate than B), and then admit that you actually haven't checked/don't know for sure. I assume the same is the case here. You haven't actually read the systemd documentation or the systemd code. Not all of it of course but with /sbin/init I didn't need to. There are many ways to skin a cat, which is where I think we are getting crossed wires here. It is clear that 800K of pid 1 is going to have bugs. It is also clear that if this daemon is able to do so much such as starting services upon events that there will be major exploits. It is also almost certain that all systems are not going to require all of the functionality that the 800k represents. I am glad it has some modular nature however. I had already considered that there may be some feature I haven't considered that would have made adoption difficult as IPC would be required otherwise. I guess I wouldn't need that function though too. I'm sure raising the size
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There really is no excuse. Well actually I installed Fedora rather than another OS on one system partly to investigate and partly because some little twerp at a science park told me I should be running Fedora. Never again (atleast for a long time). -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
The registry is more debatable. I certainly wish Windows still had ini files and didn't make you eat with just a knife on a Gigantic API ;-) -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I wonder if ArmArch will run systemd. ArchLinux ARM ships systemd, just like we do. On my ARM machine (a Raspberry Pi running ArchLinux ARM) I use it, and as I mentioned it works great. I hope desktop and embedded will get closer not further away. I agree. I also wonder if every original process is forked from systemd like init? Is it? Then does that mean a megabyte rather than 32k of memory is being copied even when transforming into other far smaller processes. That shouldn't go down well in any embedded world where ram may actually be a rom. This is the sort of comments I refer to. By throwing out these statements without even checking/trying first, you are spreading FUD. You preface it with I wonder, but the effect is still the same. Please give references if you are going to flame me in future. I don't believe I described how systemd works or how to use it. There were too many emails, I gave up. Though, see above. I hope you don't mind me sharing part of a private mail. Share away. -t
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:02:24 -0300 Martin Cigorraga m...@archlinux.us wrote: What exactly is wrong with ini files and/or registry? Perhaps it is your misunderstanding... Oh please, if you ever dealt with windows registry then you know it's a totally disfunctional way to keep record of anything. Yes, I deal a lot with windows registry. In fact, I usually edit it directly to bypass standard program removal and service management. Over time it gets oversized, filled with crap, slow and totally impractical, in one word: bloated, and please, while windows may implement one or two good ideas the underlying infraestructure is as much messy as is it's registry. The problem is not with the registry itself, but bad programming. Most software devs under windows have very little understanding of the registry. -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Over time it gets oversized, filled with crap, slow and totally impractical, in one word: bloated, and please, while windows may implement one or two good ideas the underlying infraestructure is as much messy as is it's registry. The problem is not with the registry itself, but bad programming. Most software devs under windows have very little understanding of the registry I can't agree there. Even the microsoft written parts are a mess and strewn throughout in many cases. I've come to the conclusion that Microsoft must like it that way because the average user is more likely to buy a new OS with new hardware rather than fix it or migrate. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I wonder if ArmArch will run systemd. ArchLinux ARM ships systemd, just like we do. On my ARM machine (a Raspberry Pi running ArchLinux ARM) I use it, and as I mentioned it works great. I hope desktop and embedded will get closer not further away. I agree. But I include uClinux etc. in that which is what the recent support may allow without patching I also wonder if every original process is forked from systemd like init? Is it? Then does that mean a megabyte rather than 32k of memory is being copied even when transforming into other far smaller processes. That shouldn't go down well in any embedded world where ram may actually be a rom. This is the sort of comments I refer to. By throwing out these statements without even checking/trying first, you are spreading FUD. You preface it with I wonder, but the effect is still the same. Ok I'm glad it's not something I still think is a certainty. I find mailing lists can be quite informative and a good place to make people think, that's all. A fork does copy the parent initially. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:36:05AM +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: The pain is the need to merge new changes while updating. Some tools (like pacdiff) can help with the job but it's very frustrating to have one configuration file and merge lot of changes in it. Especially when it comes to cosmetic/comments changes. Having one big configuration file means it's much easier to make mistakes in it and have strong problems because of that. Dedicated files to services/requirements make such problems more isolated. Yes, I concur. Although I'm not so much a fan of systemd, I can say with confidence that this assertion matches my experience. Dividing the configurations makes each package far more likely to update itself cleanly withit botching-up some other, unrelated part of your system.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:08:26 -0500 schrieb Leonid Isaev lis...@umail.iu.edu: One thing I noticed is that the only people who usually bash Windows are those who don't develop or know very little about programming. You really shouldn't do such assumptions. You couldn't have noticed it, you're just assuming. What exactly is wrong with ini files and/or registry? Perhaps it is your misunderstanding... And I assume that you never really administrated a Windoze PC. Then you would know that particularly the registry is a PITA. Over time various linux projects took a lot from windows: gconf/dconf (~registry), Gconf is also almost a PITA. At least it's a lot more inconvenient than simple text files. KDE4 indexing services (~superfetch/desktop indexing), This indexing is one thing which makes KDE4 so slow and unstable. KDE4 was the reason why I switched to Xfce. And, yes, I tried KDE4. But Gnome and KDE4 are just optional, systemd is meant as the new init system. That's a big difference. If this all was only about an optional piece of software I wouldn't say anything. I just wouldn't use it. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:31:22 -0500 schrieb Leonid Isaev lis...@umail.iu.edu: The problem is not with the registry itself, but bad programming. Most software devs under windows have very little understanding of the registry. Bad programming is the most favorite answer, and totally nonsense. The registry just gets bigger and bigger and is totally cryptic. And the registry is one of the most frequent reasons for system crashes and instabilities. And it's the most frequent reason why Windoze regularly (usually every 3 months) needs to be reinstalled. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:25:52 +0200 schrieb Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no: Talking about UNIX philosophy and Windoze like ini files is probably what gets some people going. It is not technical. In fact it is technical. Of course, at first glance config files for rc scripts and ini files are simple text files. But the structure, the way how they are handled (sourced or parsed), etc. is pretty different. And it's not only the ini thing. It's the whole possible move to making Linux a lot more Windoze like what I'm afraid of. The UNIX philosophy has worked for about 40 years and is totally tested and approved. Systemd is not. Of course, new things don't need to be bad and times are changing and sometimes there have to be made some adjustments, but it's a question how those new things are designed. And that's another point which I'm afraid of. I have tested PulseAudio and I know who has written and designed it. And I know that it totally doesn't work with a very few exceptions. And then I see that the same person starts writing something else at the same time, which intervenes even more into the system, even if the first software doesn't work correctly. So what do you think, how this looks like? Do you really think that this sounds trustworthy? Added to this I read that there are Windoze like ini files again in this second software of this person. Why do you think I have switched from Windoze to Linux? Of course, it was not the ini files in the first place. It was the whole terrible design and concept of Windoze incl. the registry. I still always get fits of raving madness if I have to work with Windoze, because I regularly need several hours for fixing something which I had fixed within minutes in Linux because of those simple and small config files and shell scripts (and because of the UNIX philosophy). And I know Windoze pretty well, too. Btw., I'm working with Computers since more than 25 years now and with Linux exclusively more than 10 years. And I started with an Apple IIc and a 8086 with PC-DOS 3.1, worked with several Windoze versions and I know Linux since 1993. So I guess I know what I'm talking about. In Linux I have/had some simple text files with which I can/could configure the whole system, while I had a terrible, cryptic registry on Windoze. In Linux I just can/could add a daemon to rc.conf to have it run. From what I read so far about systemd in all those discussions, in systemd I have to run a special command to have a daemon started at boot time (which I additionally have to remember), I have to write such an ini file instead of just writing or editing a simple and small config file or shell script, then systemd creates some symlinks of files into another directory whose name is also totally cryptic, at least way to long. This is a total mess, if this is really true, and it's absolutely a step towards a second Windoze. You have explained some of the advantages of systemd. And this sounds quite good, I admit. But I fear it's badly designed, at least everything around those advantages. And this all is technical. Yeah, we might agree that UNIX is great and Windows is bad. But in a technical argument, it is just annoying to point to tradition and philosophy rather than technical facts, regardless of what side of the argument you are on. It's not really annoying. Well, yes, if there was no substance behind it and if the tradition wasn't approved this well as it is in Linux and UNIX. See above. The problem in such long discussions is, that it's sometimes not possible or that people just don't have the time or the nerves to explain all the arguments in detail. But if there's such a long discussion and if there are so many complains about a software or a change, then you can assume that there's something going pretty wrong. Either this software or change hasn't been explained good enough to the people (and just saying RTFM is not enough in such cases) or the software is indeed not well enough designed, which should probably be fixed. And, btw., I never ever have read such long discussions and so many complains about a software like about the software of Lennart Poettering (PulseAudio and systemd). I was definitely not the only one who complained about it. And this must have a reason. And you can't tell me, that all those people have too little knowledge. If you claim that systemd does not follow the UNIX philosophy (I disagree, but whatever), and if you claim that anything not following the UNIX philosophy is bad (I disagree, but whatever), then you should be able to combine these two claims and point to a technical flaw or shortcomming in systemd without any reference to UNIX, or Windows, or KISS at all. See above. I think, I don't need to search for links which explain the UNIX philosophy. Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There is a huge amount of documentation, discussion
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Seriously, who reads source codes? Manpages usually only explain the parameters, not the design of the software and how it works. There may be some other documentations, I haven't yet seen any. Overview of the bootprocess under systemd: http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/bootup.html Some info about old- and new-style daemons: http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/daemon.html Some general info about the systemd daemon: http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/systemd.html Lots and lots of man-pages documenting every little part of systemd: http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ More info about systemd, including links to Lennart's blogs, which explain things in a more understandable way than the man-pages: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ Now I know that you can explain things. So why not do it if you find that someone doesn't know enough about what's talked about? Nobody expects that you write a second documentation, but explaining some details can sometimes help. Sure, whenever people ask something I try my best to explain what I can. My comment was aimed at those who pretend to know without doing their research. -t
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am 25.07.2012 02:00, schrieb Heiko Baums: Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:31:22 -0500 [...] And it's the most frequent reason why Windoze regularly (usually every 3 months) needs to be reinstalled. Heiko Good morning, that is / was right for Win 98 or Win ME. Having an exception error which was caused by damaged registry files always meant a reset to state short after the OS-installation, so all the drivers and programs had to be re-installed. But my XP-Installation ran more than five years stable though being stressed by many test-installations of applications. Does not mean that XP or Win 7 is going to make an admin feel happy - but yes, there was an improvement, at least for the users. Nelson.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Bad programming is the most favorite answer, and totally nonsense. The registry just gets bigger and bigger and is totally cryptic. And the registry is one of the most frequent reasons for system crashes and instabilities. And it's the most frequent reason why Windoze regularly (usually every 3 months) needs to be reinstalled. Heiko Hello Heiko, this is simply not true. First of all, starting with Windows XP the stability of Windows (yes, Windows, not Windoze) got much better and there are very few crashes which are mostly related to driver issues, IMO. Secondly, Windows doesn't need to be reinstalled every 3 months. Come on, most companies use Windows on their desktops and they don't need to reinstall them every 3 months. And their employees actually can work with their computers. And i don't say this because i like Windows but because i'm realistic and not unfair. I don't live in a world where one system is perfect and the others are all completely crap. If you think that Windows is completely bad then you're not professional. BTW: pacman.conf is written in an ini-style as well. Greetings, Oliver
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Am Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:36:05 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht nsebre...@piing.fr: Sounds like you (don't take this a personal critism, you're not alone) have poor administration practices. First, I do have administration practices. Editing multiple files instead of one in not a problem at all. In fact, it's the exactly opposite. The pain is the need to merge new changes while updating. Some tools (like pacdiff) can help with the job but it's very frustrating to have one configuration file and merge lot of changes in it. Especially when it comes to cosmetic/comments changes. Having one big configuration file means it's much easier to make mistakes in it and have strong problems because of that. Dedicated files to services/requirements make such problems more isolated. So, we're going a better robustness, better expectations compliance for new incoming users (and admins having more than one arch desktop to maintain). You are right when it comes to such long config files like for Apache or PHP. But we are talking about rc.conf. That is not a long configuration file. And I really don't see how there are chances to make mistakes. Btw., chances that those merging tools make mistakes are much bigger with such big config files like e.g. php.ini. And it takes a lot more time to check if they did their job correctly. Who is manually editing each configuration one after the other need lessons on administration tasks. I don't think so. Who manually edits config files just don't trust all those merging tools, because he has made bad experience with those tools or has other reasons and wants to keep full control over his config files. And believe me, checking if the merging tools made what they are expected to do is much more time consuming than manually editing those files. How many times do you get a .pacnew file? And how big are those files usually? I don't need to edit those files so many times. And if I have only one short file like /etc/rc.conf I have all my settings at a glance and only need to type nano /etc/rc.conf only once instead of several times nano /etc/vconsole.conf, nano /etc/hostname.conf or whatever. This is a lot more time consuming. Btw., in several cases a simple mv something.conf.pacnew something.conf is sufficient. But this all (I mean the whole discussion here) is complaining on a high level, a very high level. And Tom already said several times, that he will support both the single rc.conf and the separate config files. So I really don't understand this discussion. I just hope that those single files are not created by default or will be integrated into systemd, so that they are only installed if systemd is installed. If merging tools are not good enough, then let's improve them. But please all, don't make a shoot on current changes. Then improve the merging tools. I haven't complained about them, and I don't use them. You brought them in. What Tom is doing is exactly what most of ArchLinux users expect. That's why there is such a long discussion and why most people write that they are worried about it. I would rather say, it's what you expect. I have experience with both and principally don't have a problem with both ways. I just say that I prefer one single /etc/rc.conf, because it's clearer and easier to maintain. And the philosophy, KISS principle or whatever theory that you think is good in Archlinux is not beeing broken at all. One single /etc/rc.conf is a bit more KISS. But like I said that's complaining on a very high level. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:30:37AM +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: The 22/07/12, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Simple example: I didn't have consolekit for some years, and I don't care about whatever it has to offer. ...This may be why you don't understand benefits of such tools... If you could point out the benefits it could have for me please do. Until some recent xdm update I didn't have ck, and everything worked exactly as I wanted it. That is still the case, so at best ck is useless for me, it just eats recources. ...and why you think it's only comsuming resources. So what else is it doing ? Please tell me why you think I need it. Mount usb keys as a normal user ? I can arrange that without ck. Change ownership of some things to a 'local' login ? I don't want that to happen. Anything else ? -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Okay, time to drop my 0.02¢ as well. And I'm pretty sure everything said here in this mail has been said elsewhere as well, but hey... ;) ArchLinux tries to be as KISS as possible. That's true. And I think, it does a pretty good job at that. And switching to systemd with a couple of config-files instead of one rc.conf might seem like a huge step away from this principle, but in fact it ain't. What is rc.conf used for right now anyway? Most of the settings in the rc.conf are set during setup and not changed afterwards. I mean, who changes his locale or his hostname? Then there are deamons, it's really nice to have an array where you enter a name for a startup service and this array is used to start services fifo. Great. But as far as I saw, systemd provides a simple command to add services and the like. And since it works for services, mountpoints and sockets alike, it provides a good and coherent way to work with a lot of your system-admin things... I like that. So.. in my point of view, it's not such a bad thing that rc.conf gets replaced by a couple of other files and a nice cli-interface. For you this change might be a reason to switch to Fedora, you say. I mean, seriously? How is it all handled in Fedora then? Well, I don't now, actually. But I get kinda offended by neglecting the features that ArchLinux really make the best linux distro out there imho: - It's a rolling release distro: You only have to carefully do pacman -Syu to keep your system up-to-date. I started using Linux with Ubuntu and first I really looked forward to a new release, I mean new features, new artwork and all that stuff. But distupgrade nearly always failed and so I re-installed my system every six months. This is not good! With ArchLinux I can spent way more time just using my system instead of playing admin. - It has pacman: Pacman really is KISS. It does its job and it does it really, really good. It's fast and quite simple to use and to configure. - It has PKGBUILD: If you want compile a package due to some patches or extra settings (by using ABS) or if you want to install a package that is not in the official repos, you have to work with PKGBUILD and makepkg. The first being a really nice and easy to grasp file you can read and understand and configure to your own desires, the second being a tool to download the desired software, take care of dependencies and compiling the software. This is just dead-simple and great. KISS again, through and through. - Mentioned a lot of times: the community, the wiki and the mailinglist, the channel. All of them are excellent and outstanding. Well, That's why I am staying with ArchLinux, that's why I came back after enjoying Gentoo for quite a while, that's why I recommend it to people asking me with which Linux they should go. Maybe you really switch to Fedora due to rc.conf losing it's job a little, maybe you just did a great job trolling the list, I'm glad to write down why I really like ArchLinux :) 1126 On Sun, 22. Jul 06:59, fredbezies wrote: text added by mvmf mail filter mvmda: regcomp failed. mvmda: regcomp failed. mvmda: regcomp failed. end of text added by mvmf mail filter Hello. I've read all the arguments of Tom and Ionut. Here is my own $0.02 on it. When I started using archlinux back in end of 2008, the winning point was this file. A centralized one where you can set up a lot of single options. It is *far* simpler to edit /etc/rc.conf to load daemons or modules than editing 2 or 3 files. Killing /etc/rc.conf can't be do so soon. Or you'll see a lot of old users moving their on other distributions. For me it will be a one way ticket to fedora. And I *do hate* this idea. But developpers must know better than users what is the best for the distro. Killing /etc/rc.conf ? Why not. But for me, it is more KISS oriented than /etc/locale.conf, /etc/vconsole.conf, /etc/modprobe.d/*.conf files. As I said, it is my $0.02. Excuse my bad english, I'm no really awake ! -- Frederic Bezies fredbez...@gmail.com
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 23 July 2012 11:35, 1126 mailingli...@elfsechsundzwanzig.de wrote: Okay, time to drop my 0.02¢ as well. And I'm pretty sure everything said here in this mail has been said elsewhere as well, but hey... ;) [...] the features that ArchLinux really make the best linux distro out there imho: [...] Good points indeed. BTW, I've read the thread, I've reconsidered it my own opinions and I've come to the conclusion that I have no reason to not to trust that Arch developers won't keep their actions aligned with The Arch Way. As long as the The Arch Way won't wiggle too much or too often, I'm cool. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, 1126 mailingli...@elfsechsundzwanzig.dewrote: For you this change might be a reason to switch to Fedora, you say. I mean, seriously? How is it all handled in Fedora then? Well, I don't now, actually. Fedora is RedHat, and that's where systemd came to live, so you can guess... - It's a rolling release distro: You only have to carefully do pacman -Syu to keep your system up-to-date. I started using Linux with Ubuntu and first I really looked forward to a new release, I mean new features, new artwork and all that stuff. But distupgrade nearly always failed and so I re-installed my system every six months. This is not good! With ArchLinux I can spent way more time just using my system instead of playing admin. Well said. I came from Ubuntu also, and I expected that in Arch some things would break because of it being rolling and more bleeding-edge than Ubuntu. I accepted that, but as it happened, it breaks _less_ than Ubuntu. And, actually, about the rc.conf split, I couldn't care less. One file, three files, doesn't make a difference to me. As long as they are text files, and not binary ones, like some other mainstream systems, all is good. Just my 0.02 € -- Regards.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
2012/7/23 Rodrigo Rivas rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, 1126 mailingli...@elfsechsundzwanzig.dewrote: For you this change might be a reason to switch to Fedora, you say. I mean, seriously? How is it all handled in Fedora then? Well, I don't now, actually. Fedora is RedHat, and that's where systemd came to live, so you can guess... I wrote the first message before I successfully done a setup with a minimal rc.conf - It's a rolling release distro: You only have to carefully do pacman ./ -Syu to keep your system up-to-date. I started using Linux with Ubuntu and first I really looked forward to a new release, I mean new features, new artwork and all that stuff. But distupgrade nearly always failed and so I re-installed my system every six months. This is not good! With ArchLinux I can spent way more time just using my system instead of playing admin. Well said. I came from Ubuntu also, and I expected that in Arch some things would break because of it being rolling and more bleeding-edge than Ubuntu. For the record, I'm using arch since end of 2008 / beginning of 2009. It is the first time I was very upset by a change from developer team. I accepted that, but as it happened, it breaks _less_ than Ubuntu. And, actually, about the rc.conf split, I couldn't care less. One file, three files, doesn't make a difference to me. As long as they are text files, and not binary ones, like some other mainstream systems, all is good. Not 3, but 6 more files. I do agree you don't have to modify them everyday, but it is - in a way - harder to set u than a single one. Just my 0.02 € -- Regards. -- Frederic Bezies fredbez...@gmail.com
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 23/07/12 13:10, fredbezies wrote: 2012/7/23 Rodrigo Rivas rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, 1126 mailingli...@elfsechsundzwanzig.dewrote: For you this change might be a reason to switch to Fedora, you say. I mean, seriously? How is it all handled in Fedora then? Well, I don't now, actually. Fedora is RedHat, and that's where systemd came to live, so you can guess... I wrote the first message before I successfully done a setup with a minimal rc.conf - It's a rolling release distro: You only have to carefully do pacman ./ -Syu to keep your system up-to-date. I started using Linux with Ubuntu and first I really looked forward to a new release, I mean new features, new artwork and all that stuff. But distupgrade nearly always failed and so I re-installed my system every six months. This is not good! With ArchLinux I can spent way more time just using my system instead of playing admin. Well said. I came from Ubuntu also, and I expected that in Arch some things would break because of it being rolling and more bleeding-edge than Ubuntu. For the record, I'm using arch since end of 2008 / beginning of 2009. It is the first time I was very upset by a change from developer team. I accepted that, but as it happened, it breaks _less_ than Ubuntu. And, actually, about the rc.conf split, I couldn't care less. One file, three files, doesn't make a difference to me. As long as they are text files, and not binary ones, like some other mainstream systems, all is good. Not 3, but 6 more files. I do agree you don't have to modify them everyday, but it is - in a way - harder to set u than a single one. If it's documented it's hard? Sure one file would be easier, but if the 3,4,5 or 6 files are documented there should be no real problems. Just my 0.02 € -- Regards. -- Jelle van der Waa signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
[...] Not 3, but 6 more files. I do agree you don't have to modify them everyday, but it is - in a way - harder to set u than a single one. If it's documented it's hard? Sure one file would be easier, but if the 3,4,5 or 6 files are documented there should be no real problems. I do agree. So telling the users : do not forget to setup these files (followed by a file list) could help. Just an idea. And for 6, I also have to modules like vbox ones, so there is a file for them. -- Frederic Bezies fredbez...@gmail.com
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Simple example: I didn't have consolekit for some years, and I don't care about whatever it has to offer. Recent updates of xdm have pulled it in. So far it hasn't done anything evil except being useless and consuming system resources (50 or so threads). Same about polkit, it's pulled in only as a depency of gconf which in turn is only there because the Emacs package wants it. But this does not have anything to do with the recent proposal / change of the rc.conf and the split up coming along with this. So you shouldn't mix things up here. It does because this proposal has been thankfully and honestly made out as an expected softener of the inevitable. Breaking up systemd into smaller optional packages rather than sucking more and more in and so bugs as more code equals more bugs, should perhaps be rallied upstream and I hope is inevitable too. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Fair enough, but for this sort of thing, who is 'upstream' ? In this case the super-ingenious Lennart Poettering, I guess. That said, Gentoo always had separate config files located in /etc/conf.d. So the idea of not having one single rc.conf is not this new. Nevertheless one single /etc/rc.conf makes the administration a bit more comfortable, because you have all settings at a glance and don't need to cat or edit several files. Hear, hear -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Of course you could complain directly upstream, but in general there are good reasons why they make use of things Polkit and ConsoleKit. Otherwise each and every program would have to implement the functionalities these packages provide for them self, which would be even worse. Or much better -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
I don't think a single Arch specific file is as simple as some standardized files, where the filename already tells you what it is supposed to do. Both comments and defaults are allowed and appreciated, so this is not an argument at all. It is not necessarily this difference but the fact that this bsdism guarantees plain sight whilst almost all other systems I have seen are far less clear and arch was refreshing in this regard in the linux world. OpenBSD has always had an rc.conf with default base provided package settings (almost everything =NO (off)) and an override rc.conf.local showing the name and non-default commandline arguments used, which I love. Fairly recently it has gotten a single rc.d folder for user installed packages which sometimes require longer scripts too. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
That said, Gentoo always had separate config files located in /etc/conf.d. So the idea of not having one single rc.conf is not this new. Nevertheless one single /etc/rc.conf makes the administration a bit more comfortable, because you have all settings at a glance and don't need to cat or edit several files. specifically relevent Sounds like you (don't take this a personal critism, you're not alone) have poor administration practices. Editing multiple files instead of one in not a problem at all. In fact, it's the exactly opposite. Offended for no reason The pain is the need to merge new changes while updating. Some tools (like pacdiff) can help with the job but it's very frustrating to have one configuration file and merge lot of changes in it. Especially when it comes to cosmetic/comments changes. Having one big configuration file means it's much easier to make mistakes in it and have strong problems because of that. Dedicated files to services/requirements make such problems more isolated. So, we're going a better robustness, better expectations compliance for new incoming users (and admins having more than one arch desktop to maintain). Irrelevent here. It's poor administration practice not to check your seds, eds, files to install or sudoedits anyway. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
But developpers must know better than users what is the best for the distro. Killing /etc/rc.conf ? Why not. But for me, it is more KISS oriented than /etc/locale.conf, /etc/vconsole.conf, /etc/modprobe.d/*.conf files. As I said, it is my $0.02. Excuse my bad english, I'm no really awake ! I agree with your .02 fred, I prefer a well commented rc.conf config file to virtually all of the other sysv and variations I've seen. A single file, well laid out and easily set up with reasonable defaults by Arch and simple to customize for the user. KISS in the best sense. I'll also add my .02 on commented v. non-commented config/init files. There is no substitution for a well commented file. I hate opening a commentless config file and then having to switch to another vt to guess at which man page to open. (then alt+left, alt+right back and forth hunting down each option in some badly readable man page) For those that don't like comments, then please just 'grep -v ^# old.conf new.conf' to get rid of the comments. There is nothing the rest of the users can do to put the comments back in once there gone. Well said. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
However one fine day, an abrupt power-cut later, my home partition was no longer mountable under systemd. Initscripts worked fine. So I switched back.. didn't miss a thing.. You're wrong. SysV init scripts _are_ broken, today. But it's silently failing without even noticing it to users in many cases. Finding such boot errors is painfull and time consuming. Did you read this before posting. It's obvious that reviewing the config files and getting the source and finding the bug in C is much easier of course and can be fixed immediately by anyone without another OS or machine. 'silently failing', only if it's meant to. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
that without ck. Change ownership of some things to a 'local' login ? I don't want that to happen. You're free to fight again changes or improvements. The simplest way I know consist in installing a 70th year old system and don't update it. You should work for Redhat. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
to get rid of all that Poetterix Once again this is not a technical argument, but a very subjective reason with - at least for me - no basis. Its more of a philosophy and that's not what this should be about. If you *really* like an audio stack without PulseAudio (which I would consider quite useless on a modern desktop) and an init system based upon something as old, stupid and slow as SysVinit, then you are free to stick with it. Nobody forces you to use PA and/or systemd. Tested, simply sophisticated and as fast as you make it. Once you get to desktop level and SSDs, who cares about a few seconds. The fastest booting systems ( 1 second) use init and won't use systemd. It would be good if you would practice what you preach especially when he has made hugely valid contributions that can't be fixed using systemd. Systemds functions can be replicated in the unix style of many tools doing a single job well. WRT pulse audio it won't run under a grsecurity kernel so first I'd say define modern desktop. How functional, how secure. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Systemd is larger than init, so for embedded it may well quadruple boot time. What utter bullshit. Please, Kevin, if you are going to throw around numbers, do some measurements first. systemd is so far even more successful in embedded environments than in desktop ones (i.e. embedded people seem to be more eager to ship it), I doubt that would be the case if it is four times slower to boot. I'm currently using it on my raspberry pi, without any problems. I have not done any performance measurements, but there are very good reasons why initscripts are expected to be slower than systemd (on the same setup) and it has nothing to do with bash versus C, or the size of the binaries. Is debian switching That remains to be seen. There are certainly lots of debian people involved with systemd upstream, and there are people working on systemd integration in debian. -t
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
[2012-07-23 16:35:26 +0100] Kevin Chadwick: You should work for Redhat. Could you give us a break for a couple minutes and reflect on how many people you just spammed with your dozen content-free emails? Thanks for thinking for more than half a second next time you send something here. -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
For having used systemd myself, I am inclined to believe that it definitely fits the KISS principle. Systemctl is only a frontend to simplify the addition and removal of services. Simplicity is only a matter of learning new commands (systemctl enable daemon.service, e.g.). What systemctl really does when you enable a service is that it creates symbolic links in /etc/systemd/system/target.wants.target/ that point to appropriate deamon launch helpers located in /usr/lib/systemd/system/. The proper target folder (graphical, multi-user, single-user) is obtained by reading the actual target file, but this can be overridden if you do the links manually. What I find really powerful of systemd is that it hooks onto the daemon itself and monitors exit codes and log files. Finding what's wrong with your sshd service is only a matter of typing systemctl status sshd.service. You get current activity, its PID, the actual command it ran to start it, its status code if it ceased working, and the few last lines from the log file. To find out what runs at startup, you may use systemctl. I don't know the particular command, so I don't use it myself. I managed to figure out how to do it in a couple of seconds: you only have to ls the right directory. Graphical mode? ls /etc/systemd/system/graphical.target.wants. Multi-user: ls multi-user.target.wants. Could not be simpler. I have also found that my system boots much more rapidly with systemd. I can have a fully logged-in system running XFCE4, on older hardware (Intel Pentium 64-bit laptop) in less that 40 seconds. -- Sébastien Leblanc
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:57:46 +0200 Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Systemd is larger than init, so for embedded it may well quadruple boot time. What utter bullshit. Please, Kevin, if you are going to throw around numbers, do some measurements first. systemd is so far even more successful in embedded environments than in desktop ones (i.e. embedded people seem to be more eager to ship it), I doubt that would be the case if it is four times slower to boot. I'm currently using it on my raspberry pi, without any problems. I have not done any performance measurements, but there are very good reasons why initscripts are expected to be slower than systemd (on the same setup) and it has nothing to do with bash versus C, or the size of the binaries. To add, in general sysVinit does not see much use in modern embedded systems. For instance, (open)webOS (and probably android) has gone the upstart way. So far, only network appliances use sysVinit, but these are pretty conservative, e.g. many are still on 2.4 kernels (stock cisco, tomato, dd-wrt, etc). Is debian switching That remains to be seen. There are certainly lots of debian people involved with systemd upstream, and there are people working on systemd integration in debian. -t -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
Hi, Am 23.07.2012 17:29, schrieb Kevin Chadwick: Tested, simply sophisticated and as fast as you make it. There is no parallelization, no socket activation and no auto mounting. In no way can it be as fast as systemd. Once you get to desktop level and SSDs, who cares about a few seconds. It's not only about speed, but speed is a nice bonus. Its also about reliability. But I'm not going to enumerate the advantages of systemd over and over again. Just read the blog posts by Lennart ;). The fastest booting systems ( 1 second) use init and won't use systemd. Which systems do you have in mind? Personally I can tell you out of experience that my system boots up faster with systemd. WRT pulse audio it won't run under a grsecurity kernel so first I'd say define modern desktop. How functional, how secure. On a modern desktop you probably have bigger concerns regarding security then running grsecurity. That said it should run fine with SElinux, which Fedora is using by default. Furthermore grsecurity seems to focus on servers anyway, so I'm not sure why you even bring this up? Best regards, Karol Babioch signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On Jul 24, 2012 12:10 AM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote: [2012-07-23 16:35:26 +0100] Kevin Chadwick: You should work for Redhat. Could you give us a break for a couple minutes and reflect on how many people you just spammed with your dozen content-free emails? Thanks for thinking for more than half a second next time you send something here. -- Gaetan Couldn't have said it better. I'm not by any means a technical expert, but even I could see how much basis his posts had (or didn't)
Re: [arch-general] My end-user $0.02 on /etc/rc.conf splitting.
On 22 July 2012 13:41, Damjan gdam...@gmail.com wrote: Also, by splitting it in different files you make it more robust. You don't want to bork your network setup just because you were editing your locale and forgot to close a quote. @Damjan: this isn't completely true because if the config file parser is well coded it just can ignore the faulty locale line while correctly parsing everything else, that's what I do when I need to parse a file: if a line has a typo or a value is out of range or plain wrong I make the parser show a warning message and keep parsing the config file :) My 2 cents regarding rc.conf (as a 2-years Arch fan): Seems I've been out of sync lately because I was totally unaware about this grand change. First of all I want to say I'm admitedly in love with Arch (as strange as it sounds, being in love with software): for a lazy guy like me Arch is both easy and simple, in fact easier and simpler than any other GNU/Linux distro out there (may be with the only exception of Slackware). It has a clean file layout, the packaging system is one of the best out there -if not the best- and it's easy to see The Arch Way is implemented system wide. One of the great things I specially love about Arch is /etc/rc.conf and it's whole sysconfig scheme: it's plain *awesome* to have init configuration centralized in one slim file instead scattered through god-may-know where; /etc/rc.conf is almost *perfect* specially if I compare it with SysV Init cumbersome scheme, with plenty of directories and S and K files, come on, that really sucks. But as things change and as systemd is becoming a de-facto on GNU/Linux distros, and there's nothing that can be done to keep the awesome rc.conf from being splitted, I vote for EMBRACE THE CHANGE AS SOON AS WE CAN. If rc.conf has it's days counted, then don't delay what must be done: Arch is bleeding edge so let's honour it. While I don't like the idea of losing rc.conf and I know I will miss the 'good old days' I don't want to delay a change I know it's unavoidable :'( Since I first met Arch Linux and since I first read The Arch Way I instantly knew this was the distro I was looking for since so much time, it was already packed with nothing else than awesomeness. Because that I strongly believe devs and TUs and everyone else who contribute to the distro development knows what's the best way to keep up with the The Arch Way and to keep Arch Linux a simple, minimalist, clean, easy and lightweight GNU/Linux distribution. Cheers =) -- -msx
