On 14 August 2012 19:36, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
Recently on the Arch mailing list there has been much discussion of
different init systems. I was just wondering which init system, y'all
approve of. SysV or OpenRC pretty suckless and unix-y to me.
What do you think?
Executables in etc? :)
On Aug 30, 2012, at 20:26, Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2012 19:36, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
Recently on the Arch mailing list there has been much discussion of
different init systems. I was just wondering which init system,
Executables in etc? :)
Aside from the historical precedent, even OpenBSD runs scripts located in /etc.
-sl
On 30 August 2012 14:40, s...@9front.org wrote:
Executables in etc? :)
Aside from the historical precedent, even OpenBSD runs scripts located in
/etc.
-sl
I don't really care where my executables are as long as my paths are
setup correctly. Which they are.
On 30 August 2012 20:37, pancake panc...@youterm.com wrote:
Executables in etc? :)
I don't mind breaking the rules and moving it to /bin/, but I need the
system running first to get a feel for it.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:50:53PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
Both are crap. openrc in particular is some serious amateur-hour
I love it when suckless talks about amateur hours.
Maybe it is time to rewrite cat again?
- Jukka
torsdagen den 16 augusti 2012 06.59.45 skrev pancake:
Using mk takes sense as long as init scripts are a dependency based system.
Please go on. That looks fun
Looks like doing suckless software implies surviving to troll comments.
Your software will be suckless when trolls stop throwing
I'll just note that, regardless of code quality, etc, there's the
question of what the end-user usability goals for an init system
should be.
Is it just to bring up the system, or is it to bring up the system
fast enough to use in an quickbooting environment (5s off an SSD)?
I'm very inclined
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:00:03PM +0100, David Tweed wrote:
I'll just note that, regardless of code quality, etc, there's the
question of what the end-user usability goals for an init system
should be.
No. An end user should not even be aware init exists. The people an
init system has to
On 8/14/12, Kurt H Maier khm-suckl...@intma.in wrote:
More distros
should focus on using init to bring up the system and then leave
userspace daemons to daemontools or such.
Does Plan 9 need a service supervision service (like daemontools on Unixoids)?
If it does need one, what should it look
Well, yes-and-no. The end user (who in the case of many linux desktops
and laptops is also the sys admin) may not be aware of how things are
structured under the hood, but they can perceive laptop X spends a
lot of time doing stuff when I turn it on, while laptop Y is usable
almost instantly. The
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:39:43PM +0100, David Tweed wrote:
Well, yes-and-no. The end user (who in the case of many linux desktops
and laptops is also the sys admin) may not be aware of how things are
structured under the hood, but they can perceive laptop X spends a
lot of time doing stuff
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Kurt H Maier khm-suckl...@intma.in wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:39:43PM +0100, David Tweed wrote:
Well, yes-and-no. The end user (who in the case of many linux desktops
and laptops is also the sys admin) may not be aware of how things are
structured under
Using mk takes sense as long as init scripts are a dependency based system.
Please go on. That looks fun
Looks like doing suckless software implies surviving to troll comments.
Your software will be suckless when trolls stop throwing rocks at it.
On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:02, Sam Watkins
Hey all,
Recently on the Arch mailing list there has been much discussion of
different init systems. I was just wondering which init system, y'all
approve of. SysV or OpenRC pretty suckless and unix-y to me.
What do you think?
Calvin
That's a really good question!
Maybe, I already know what suckless thinks about SystemD.
--
Envoyé d'Archlinux
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:36:55PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
Hey all,
Recently on the Arch mailing list there has been much discussion of
different init systems. I was just wondering which init system, y'all
approve of. SysV or OpenRC pretty suckless and unix-y to me.
What do you
On 14 August 2012 13:50, Kurt H Maier khm-suckl...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:36:55PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
Hey all,
Recently on the Arch mailing list there has been much discussion of
different init systems. I was just wondering which init system, y'all
approve of.
first initiate sanity in your brain
There are dependency based init systems, should use mk for it.
net: 1
inetd: net
2: getty inetd
mk 2 # go to runlevel 2
# inetd crashes
mk 2 # bring it back to life
It would need some sort of procfs view with process names, where unlink
sends a term signal, and some extra features
20 matches
Mail list logo
