On 04/10/2017 03:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the
simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
S
On 4/10/2017 3:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
And I remember when these new fangled init scripts first appeared - boy
did everyone find them confusing and hated them.
indeed. BSD just used /etc/rc.conf and /etc/rc.d/{servicename}
then AT&T SystemV came along with the whole levels and init.d an
> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the
> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>
> So, at which stage are you in
On 4/10/2017 2:27 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Without intent to contradict... I really would prefer them numbered
according to their bus address. Not in the order (or reverse order - as it
was once) of them been discovered. And if you add hardware with bus
address between those of eth0 and eth1, yo
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
>> eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
>> *any* system you're administering?
>
> if I have a Intel gigE interface and a Mar
On Mon, April 10, 2017 4:17 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
>> eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
>> *any* system you're administering?
>
> if I have
On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
*any* system you're administering?
if I have a Intel gigE interface and a Marvell 10g interfaces, which one
Jonathan Billings wrote:
>> And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
>> manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called?
>> Do names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware
>> engineer?
>
> Unrelated to systemd. This actually started
Le 10/04/2017 à 21:57, Jonathan Billings a écrit :
> Having consistent device names is helpful when you've got more than
> one NIC and you don't want to rely on the order in which the network
> driver is loaded to define the interface name.
On my Slackware servers (no systemd, no funny network int
I know this is systemd-punching day, but at least get your information
straight.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 03:38:03PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>Why change names, such as rpc-idmapd to
> nfs-idmapd?
Unrelated to systemd, as far as I can tell. Fedora adopted new names
that made more sense,
Pete Orrall wrote:
>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
>> still
>> ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>
> I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
> the pain of others, but having professionally mana
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 09:30:20AM +0100, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
> init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
> problems quickly.
As someone who has both debugged and written many init scripts
Once upon a time, Pete Orrall said:
> > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you still
> > ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>
> I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
> the pain of others, but having p
On 2017-04-10, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> The same here. Could repeat that word for word. I fled what I could to
> FreeBSD, but in that process systemd was just the last drop that confirmed
> that my earlier decision to abandon Linux to the extent I can was right.
> Whatever has to stay Linux sucks
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you still
> ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running
SystemD
On 04/08/2017 09:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:
According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages
Like you, I have been looking for alternatives to Linux due to systemd,
SELinux, desktop environments gone way off course, etc. What can and can't be
replaced with FreeBSD or other alternatives (and why)?
- Original Message -
From: "Valeri Galtsev"
To: "centos"
Sent: Monday, April 10,
On Mon, April 10, 2017 7:29 am, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
>> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>>
>>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>>> First, it is ridiculed.
>>> Second, it is violently oppose
On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>
>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>> First, it is ridiculed.
>> Second, it is violently opposed.
>> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
> Al
19 matches
Mail list logo
