On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:30:49PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > > > This is the same reason we are using shared libraries and the Debian
> > > > > Security Team is doing it's best to track code copies.
> > > >
> > > > Consider /etc/init.d/skeleton a library then. It's sources to
> > > > any
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:06:11 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> Hmm. Let's comment that for people newer to scripting than I am.
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Steve Litt
> wrote:
> > ### RUN THE DAEMON ###
> > exec envuidgid slitt envdir ./env setuidgid slitt \
> > /d/at/python/littcron/l
On Du, 12 oct 14, 01:41:34, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:02:01 +0300
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > On Sb, 11 oct 14, 23:20:34, Reco wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:47:36 +0300
> > > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > >
> > > > At least with systemd if you fix a bug it will benefit
Hmm. Let's comment that for people newer to scripting than I am.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
> [...]
> Daemontools runscripts are incredibly simple shellscripts, that I'm
> sure you could write no sweat except in very wierd edge cases. Here's
> my run script for my home-gro
Hi.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:35:00 -0400
Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:20:34 +0400
> Reco wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:47:36 +0300
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> [huge snip]
>
> > > No, that was just for the "I'm sole user of this system, why would
> > > I n
Hi.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:02:01 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 11 oct 14, 23:20:34, Reco wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:47:36 +0300
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > > At least with systemd if you fix a bug it will benefit all daemons using
> > > it.
> >
> > No, quite the contrar
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:20:34 +0400
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:47:36 +0300
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
[huge snip]
> > No, that was just for the "I'm sole user of this system, why would
> > I need this logind stuff?" crowd.
>
> Thanks, I'm perfectly aware why I don't need logi
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 21:21:14 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 11 oct 14, 13:40:08, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > sysvinit is an idea whose time has gone. sysvinit is a poor way to
> > showcase the Unix Way. First of all, the whole idea of runlevels is
> > bizarre, and adds a lot of complexity to
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 23:20:34, Reco wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:47:36 +0300
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > At least with systemd if you fix a bug it will benefit all daemons using
> > it.
>
> No, quite the contrary. By fixing such jack-of-all-trades
> libsystemd library you're risking to *brea
Hi.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:47:36 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 11 oct 14, 19:57:42, Reco wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:18:58 +0300
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > > On Vi, 10 oct 14, 08:36:23, Joel Rees wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some complexities you can encapsulate or hide, or ex
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 13:40:08, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> sysvinit is an idea whose time has gone. sysvinit is a poor way to
> showcase the Unix Way. First of all, the whole idea of runlevels is
> bizarre, and adds a lot of complexity to init scripts. If you
> compare a daemontools /service/myserviced/run
On Sb, 11 oct 14, 19:57:42, Reco wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:18:58 +0300
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > On Vi, 10 oct 14, 08:36:23, Joel Rees wrote:
> > >
> > > Some complexities you can encapsulate or hide, or expose in an
> > > organized manner so that that are easier to deal with. Others,
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:18:58 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 10 oct 14, 08:36:23, Joel Rees wrote:
> >
> > Some complexities you can encapsulate or hide, or expose in an
> > organized manner so that that are easier to deal with. Others, no.
>
> [big snip]
>
> The complexity argument can b
Hi.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:18:58 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 10 oct 14, 08:36:23, Joel Rees wrote:
> >
> > Some complexities you can encapsulate or hide, or expose in an
> > organized manner so that that are easier to deal with. Others, no.
>
> [big snip]
>
> The complexity argument
On Vi, 10 oct 14, 08:36:23, Joel Rees wrote:
>
> Some complexities you can encapsulate or hide, or expose in an
> organized manner so that that are easier to deal with. Others, no.
[big snip]
The complexity argument can be used both ways:
- the Unix way (do one thing and do it well) leads to ma
2014/10/10 8:47 "Steve Litt" :
>
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:27:30 +0900
> Joel Rees wrote:
>
> > Complexity is not a simple topic. :-\
>
> Can I quote you on that?
Heh.
I was quoting several teachers and co-workers, I don't know if anyone has
figured out who said it first. It predates the Greek ph
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:36:23 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> Indeed. And one of the problems with computers is that people want to
> believe that computers can make complexities go away.
>
> Some complexities you can encapsulate or hide, or expose in an
> organized manner so that that are easier to de
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:27:30 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> Complexity is not a simple topic. :-\
Can I quote you on that?
SteveT
Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debia
2014/10/09 10:58 "lee" :
>
> Joel Rees writes:
>
> >> 2014/09/25 9:15 "lee" :
> >>
> >>> Joel Rees writes:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmm. So linkage is a result of complexity,
> >
> > What is complexity?
> >
> > Complexity is not a simple topic. :-\
Indeed. And one of the problems with computers is that p
Joel Rees writes:
>> 2014/09/25 9:15 "lee" :
>>
>>> Joel Rees writes:
>>
>>
>> Hmm. So linkage is a result of complexity,
>
> What is complexity?
>
> Complexity is not a simple topic. :-\
>
>> and implicity is a result of
>> undeclaredness (or unawareness of declaredness).
>
> Sort of, but not
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:34:41 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 25 sep 14, 21:27:30, Joel Rees wrote:
> >
> > There is always that possibility. It's one of the reasons for the
> > old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen
Kaizen means "good change"
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Andrei POPESCU
wrote:
> On Jo, 25 sep 14, 21:27:30, Joel Rees wrote:
>>
>> There is always that possibility. It's one of the reasons for the old
>> adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen
Sigh.
Andrei, I would be the last
On Jo, 25 sep 14, 21:27:30, Joel Rees wrote:
>
> There is always that possibility. It's one of the reasons for the old
> adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Deb
2014/09/25 9:15 "lee" :
>
> Joel Rees writes:
>
> >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:16 AM, lee wrote:
> >>
> >> I could guess that implicit linkage might refer to side effects of
> >> intentional entanglement which may be undesirable or may occur without
> >> being noticed (until a problem shows up wh
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 08:22:05AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Reco wrote:
> > You're wrong here. Cgroups are just glorified Linux-specific shell
> > limits. There's nothing in them that requires usage of s*stemd or dbus.
>
> I think you are saying that there is an
Joel Rees writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:16 AM, lee wrote:
>>
>> I could guess that implicit linkage might refer to side effects of
>> intentional entanglement which may be undesirable or may occur without
>> being noticed (until a problem shows up which then might be hard to
>> track down
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 08:22:05AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> >> * Get rid of run levels.
> >
> > And the reason for this change is? Runlevels are good where they are,
> > even if you don't use them.
>
> Well, openbsd doesn't have runlevels, and it gets along just fine.
>
> openbsd does have some
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Chris Bannister
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:35:59AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>> 2014/09/22 5:21 "Ansgar Burchardt" :
>> >
>> > Hi Joel,
>> >
>> > Joel Rees writes:
>> > > (6) systemd and cgroups (at minimum) end up overriding the permissions
>> > > system.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:16 AM, lee wrote:
> Joel Rees writes:
>
>> (2) When I was a college student, when we talked about modularity, we
>> talked about something called "implicit linkage". I don't know what
>> the current term for it is, but it is the generalized problem of
>> global constants
Joel Rees writes:
> (2) When I was a college student, when we talked about modularity, we
> talked about something called "implicit linkage". I don't know what
> the current term for it is, but it is the generalized problem of
> global constants, variables, protocols, and design patterns,
> espec
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 23/09/14 00:22, Joel Rees wrote:
>>
>> I think you are saying that there is an implementation of cgroups
>> independent of systemd?
>
> systemd does not implement cgroups. The kernel implements them; systemd just
> uses them.
Does not answe
On 23/09/14 00:22, Joel Rees wrote:
I think you are saying that there is an implementation of cgroups
independent of systemd?
systemd does not implement cgroups. The kernel implements them; systemd
just uses them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subj
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:12:38 +0900
> Joel Rees wrote:
>
>> I will acknowledge that there are some things that we could do to
>> improve the current (sysv) init in debian.
>>
>> * Get rid of run levels.
>
> And the reason for this change is?
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:21:01AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:56:43PM +0400, Reco wrote:
> >
> > In the light of the current discussion, this seems particulary fitting:
> >
> > Social human behaviour experts
>
> There is no such thing, not at least by that name. A
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:35:59AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/09/22 5:21 "Ansgar Burchardt" :
> >
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > Joel Rees writes:
> > > (6) systemd and cgroups (at minimum) end up overriding the permissions
> > > system. It's bad enough having SELinux and ACLs brought in to knock
> > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/22/2014 at 10:21 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:56:43PM +0400, Reco wrote:
>
>> In the light of the current discussion, this seems particulary
>> fitting:
>>
>> Social human behaviour experts
>
> There is no such t
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 09:56:43PM +0400, Reco wrote:
>
> In the light of the current discussion, this seems particulary fitting:
>
> Social human behaviour experts
There is no such thing, not at least by that name. Anthropologists
spring to mind, but I think you don't mean it in that sense.
Pe
Hi.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:12:38 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> I will acknowledge that there are some things that we could do to
> improve the current (sysv) init in debian.
>
> * Get rid of run levels.
And the reason for this change is? Runlevels are good where they are,
even if you don't use the
2014/09/22 5:21 "Ansgar Burchardt" :
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> Joel Rees writes:
> > (6) systemd and cgroups (at minimum) end up overriding the permissions
> > system. It's bad enough having SELinux and ACLs brought in to knock
> > holes in the permissions system, but when arbitrary non-kernel system
> > f
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one of the developers
replied to me off-list something like the following, as if to help me
unpack some of what I wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Joel Rees wrote:
> > What problem were you trying to solve when you decided there had to be a
> > switch?
> >
On 09/21/2014 01:12 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default init in
Jessie.
You can start by reading why I voted for systemd:
https://bugs.debian
Hi Joel,
Joel Rees writes:
> (6) systemd and cgroups (at minimum) end up overriding the permissions
> system. It's bad enough having SELinux and ACLs brought in to knock
> holes in the permissions system, but when arbitrary non-kernel system
> functions start getting their hands into the equation
Don Armstrong writes:
>> What I don't understand is that criticism and other forms of speaking
>> up cannot be considered as a form of contribution.
>
> Constructive criticism is often a useful contribution. Destructive
> criticism, much less so.
>
> Disagree all you want, but don't malign others
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:12:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
> > aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default init in
> > Jessie.
>
> You can start by reading why I voted
2014/09/21 14:13 "Don Armstrong" :
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
> > aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default init in
> > Jessie.
>
> You can start by reading why I voted for systemd:
>https://bugs.
Hi.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 18:47:46 +0200
Slavko wrote:
> > > Try to help by providing translations, and you'll find it's
> > > impossible because there's nowhere and no one to offer such service.
> >
> > Debian's website, installer, and many parts of the software that
> > Debian provides are all
On Du, 21 sep 14, 18:47:46, Slavko wrote:
> Dňa Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:12:51 -0700 Don Armstrong
> napísal:
> >
> > Debian's website, installer, and many parts of the software that
> > Debian provides are all translated. See
> > https://www.debian.org/international/l10n/ for example.
>
> Are you ex
Ahoj,
Dňa Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:12:51 -0700 Don Armstrong
napísal:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
> > aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default init in
> > Jessie.
>
> You can start by reading why I v
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:12:51 -0700
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
> > aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default init in
> > Jessie.
>
> You can start by reading why I voted for s
On 9/21/2014 1:12 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
>> aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default init in
>> Jessie.
>
> You can start by reading why I voted for systemd:
> https://
Thank you, Don. It needed saying, and you said it well!
Cheers,
Terence
On 21 September 2014 06:12, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
> > aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
> aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default init in
> Jessie.
You can start by reading why I voted for systemd:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#3661
52 matches
Mail list logo
