On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:42 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 18:01, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
Maybe. It's not up to a piece of software to decide.
In Unix, admins should have power to decide, not programs.
Programs provide the means, they don't dictate
I've installed XFCE. It was easy to install, and it works sanely
(unlike GNOME 3 / Unity).
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk
On 06/14/2011 11:17 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
Hi -
Dude, systemd requires the functionality of the three modules it loads
explicitly.
systemd requires ipv6.
And you pitch systemd to be used by embedded devices.
Do you really think all embedded devices will be happy
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
Slide 6:
We can now boot a system shell-free
IOW: shell is bad, my new shiny toy is good.
Oh god. If you had listened you'd have understood that my aim is
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:31 +0100, Andy Green (林安廸) wrote:
Dude, systemd requires the functionality of the three modules it loads
explicitly.
systemd requires ipv6.
And you pitch systemd to be used by embedded devices.
Do you really think all embedded devices will be happy with
On 06/14/2011 04:13 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
I talk to a lot of embedded people. Tiny machines are not going to
disappear anytime soon - they just go into smaller and smaller gadgets.
For example, there are still a noticeable segment of NOMMU CPUs, meaning
if you really target embedded, you
On Tue, 14.06.11 12:17, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:42 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 18:01, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
Maybe. It's not up to a piece of software to decide.
In Unix, admins should have power to
Is not it easy to remove everything from:
default.target
basic.target
graphical.target
...
and then add whatever we want to start or to execute or mount?
I do not really care what systemd CAN do, but really care what it is doing on
my system.
So, may be some cleaning will be the wise solution.
On 06/14/2011 11:43 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
For what's left, eg ARM9+ that you can run normal Linux and Fedora on,
ipv6 is going to be workable if the memory allows. Looking a year or
two ahead, where Embedded will extend to Cortex A15 quad core, and
IPv6 will
On 06/14/2011 04:06 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 19:02, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of
On Tue, 14.06.11 12:36, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
Slide 6:
We can now boot a system shell-free
IOW: shell is bad, my new shiny toy
On Tue, 14.06.11 07:14, Steve Clark (scl...@netwolves.com) wrote:
On 06/14/2011 04:06 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 19:02, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 09:53 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Changing a machine hostname at random times is just asking for
trouble.
Well, but it has been used in the past, and as definitely something we
should support in one way or another.
Never said we shouldn't allow it to change,
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 13:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 14.06.11 12:36, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
Slide 6:
We can now
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 12:53 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
daemontools can be set up in a way than most init scripts are
no longer necessary. It also achieves parallelized start.
This is bogus.
Amazingly deep argument. Can you do better than this?
Hmm? systemd is an init system, so
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:42:42PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
(anything they could do in shell scripts, but not they can't). This will
feel good, right? You will be such an important guy!
I think most lurkers have understood you seem to have some personal
issues with Lennart. Please still
On Tue, 14.06.11 07:25, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot
time ?
The user might want to change it?
Does setting it at boot time prevent you from changing it later ?
No, systemd will initialize it at boot and is happy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/14/2011 04:00 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 18:18, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 10:17 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:25 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I've installed XFCE. It was easy to install, and it works sanely
(unlike GNOME 3 / Unity).
And you can add some interesting tools around xfce which enhance,imo,
its operation.
-sv
--
devel mailing list
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 14:08 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 14.06.11 07:25, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot
time ?
The user might want to change it?
Does setting it at boot time prevent you from
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
I think the console-kit-daemon service can be disabled, but xinit
prefixes xsession with ck-xinit-session which seems to start the
daemon on demand. It would be nice if xinit could be configured to not
use it.
ConsoleKit is not optional (at least in Fedora 7 to 15).
On 06/14/2011 06:36 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
You go quite farther than that.
We can now boot a system shell-free. *Shell-free*.
You are not saying driving boot process by shell scripts is slow
because ... ... ... (an argument I would agree with), you are
aiming at *eliminating* shell
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:36:25PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
I think the console-kit-daemon service can be disabled, but xinit
prefixes xsession with ck-xinit-session which seems to start the
daemon on demand. It would be nice if xinit could be configured to not
Am 14.06.2011 16:36, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
I think the console-kit-daemon service can be disabled, but xinit
prefixes xsession with ck-xinit-session which seems to start the
daemon on demand. It would be nice if xinit could be configured to not
use it.
ConsoleKit
On 06/14/2011 07:31 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:25 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I've installed XFCE. It was easy to install, and it works sanely
(unlike GNOME 3 / Unity).
And you can add some interesting tools around xfce which enhance,imo,
its operation.
Does it
On 06/14/2011 11:24 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 06/14/2011 12:27 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 06/14/2011 07:31 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:25 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I've installed XFCE. It was easy to install, and it works sanely
(unlike GNOME 3 / Unity).
On 06/14/2011 02:32 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 06/14/2011 11:24 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Its worked super well for me (though less well with GNOME3's effects
etc)... Can you point me to what you mean by the usual info into
xorg.conf? to be clear, I don't want to run *my* session
Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) said:
In this case you are not better/worse than before, once the network will
come up you'll add a script to change the hostname.
Setting it earlier in systemd makes no difference.
You continue to avoid answering my question: WHY systemd, a service
On 06/14/2011 12:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:27:33AM -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 06/14/2011 07:31 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:25 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I've installed XFCE. It was easy to install, and it works sanely
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca wrote:
Its worked super well for me (though less well with GNOME3's effects
etc)... Can you point me to what you mean by the usual info into
xorg.conf? to be clear, I don't want to run *my* session over VNC. I
want to be
On 06/14/2011 01:55 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Nathanael D. Nobletnathan...@gnat.ca
wrote:
Its worked super well for me (though less well with GNOME3's effects
etc)... Can you point me to what you mean by the usual info into
xorg.conf? to be clear, I don't
On 06/14/2011 12:40 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
I assume its either local intranet - or you've ssh tunneled port 5900 to
be visible on your client machine where you're running vncviewer if
your doing this over the internet.
Thanks, that's great. Yeah this is all VPN'd access so secured via
Nathanael D. Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca wrote:
Its worked super well for me (though less well with GNOME3's effects
etc)... Can you point me to what you mean by the usual info into
xorg.conf? to be clear, I don't want to run *my* session over VNC. I
want to be able to connect to a remote
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:21 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 14:08 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 14.06.11 07:25, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot
time ?
The user might want to change
On Fri, 10.06.11 15:07, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
Hi Lennart,
systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
I ever played with.
Granted, systemd does a bit more that typical init, but I think
using *eleven plus megabytes* of malloced space is a bit
On Fri, 10.06.11 18:58, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 16:11 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 06/10/2011 03:59 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
systemd does not take the system down when it crashes. It catches the
Hi Lennart,
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 10:15 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 10.06.11 15:07, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
I understand your desire to replace everything by systemd.
I have no such desire.
What is this then?
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
...
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
plymouth_running()? Plymouth? Systemd knows about plymouth? Why?
Because we need to constantly send updates to it. It's a trivial socket
operation. It's a trivial thing and spawning a separate process to send
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:29 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 15:27, Denys Vlasenko (dvlas...@redhat.com) wrote:
kmod_setup(); === ???
We load a couple of kernel modules which systemd needs, and are
sometimes compiled as module only and which cannot be
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 06:01:22PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:29 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
We load a couple of kernel modules which systemd needs, and are
sometimes compiled as module only and which cannot be autoloaded for a
reason or another. This is
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.orgwrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 06:01:22PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:29 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
We load a couple of kernel modules which systemd needs, and are
sometimes compiled as
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 05:13:39PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
The point of providing a platform is that developers can make certain
assumptions about available functionality. It's no longer reasonable
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com wrote:
~11MB equals ~8 cents of RAM ... so meh.
Are you volunteering to buy more RAM for every Fedora user? ;)
Maybe if you send me the money first ;)
(Sorry for private spam, hit wrong button)
--
devel mailing list
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of the
most trivial system calls known to men and doing this with a
separate
binary is just absurd. This way we also can ensure that the hostname
is
always initialised
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of the
most trivial system calls known to men and doing this with a
separate
binary is just absurd. This way we
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 19:02 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 12:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:01 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
We invoke sethostname() from inside systemd since that is one of the
most trivial system calls known to men and doing
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:33:19AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Uh, and even much healthier than Upstart, which you seem to be a big fan
of. Ohloh lists 3 patch authors. (But I figure that is out-of-date, it
cannot be that low)
I'm guessing its just ohloh having as much trouble operating
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Slide 14:
systemd is an Init System
systemd is a Platform
systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft
Carrier? More to the point: Lennart can call his program whatever he
wants, even Nuclear Submarine. The
On 06/13/2011 02:10 PM, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Slide 14:
systemd is an Init System
systemd is a Platform
systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft
Carrier? More to the point: Lennart can call his program whatever he
Coming out of pure lurk mode - I think Seth's observations here are true
for a
many of the things that have gone on in Fedora recently (at the risk of
opening wounds... eg. gnome3). Your options are:
1) Complain
2) Get involved in the development to the point where you are one
of
Karl Misselt wrote:
Coming out of pure lurk mode - I think Seth's observations here
are true for a many of the things that have gone on in Fedora
recently (at the risk of opening wounds... eg. gnome3).
If GNOME 3 is your problem, try KDE Plasma or Xfce.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:30 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot time?
The problem with having specific hostname I had is when I boot many
dozens of diskless machines off the
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:03:33PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
for decades. Fedora 14's init system isn't that different to the first
version
of RHL (4.0) I started using back in 96.
This is somewhat misleading.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:19:03AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:03:33PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
for decades. Fedora 14's init system isn't that different to the first
version
of RHL
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:19:03AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:03:33PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
for decades. Fedora
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:42:11 +0200 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:36 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Why does systemd link against libpam?
systemd does logins now, not /bin/login or gdm or ...?
to implement PAMName= (man systemd.exec)
I don't see any users of this
On 11 Jun 2011 03:35, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2011 05:20 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Lets be blunt here - he pushed very very very hard on these very lists
to get systemd in - now its in F15 and there are problems - so no
punting please. Upstream and fedora are
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Lennart,
systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
I ever played with.
Granted, systemd does a bit more that typical init, but I think
using *eleven plus megabytes* of malloced space is a bit
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com
wrote:
Hi Lennart,
systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
I ever played with.
Granted, systemd does a bit more that typical
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.comwrote:
On 06/10/2011 03:13 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
what would be really nice is to redirect systemd discussions to its
upstream mailing list. Fedora devel is hardly the best place for it.
Rahul
Beg to differ -
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:03:33PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
for decades. Fedora 14's init system isn't that different to the first version
of RHL (4.0) I started using back in 96.
This is somewhat misleading. There have been many rewrites of the init
system in the past decade. In
Hi Lennart,
systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
I ever played with.
Granted, systemd does a bit more that typical init, but I think
using *eleven plus megabytes* of malloced space is a bit much.
systemctl --all shows 258 units total on my machine,
thus systemd uses
On 06/10/2011 03:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
I understand your desire to replace everything by systemd.
I really do. syslogd, klogd, mount, fsck, and a dozen other things
I forget or don't know.
You're exaggerating.
Why does systemd link against libpam?
systemd does logins now, not
On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 06/10/2011 03:07 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
I understand your desire to replace everything by systemd.
I really do. syslogd, klogd, mount, fsck, and a dozen other things
I forget or don't know.
You're exaggerating.
Why does systemd link against
On 06/10/2011 09:07 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Hi Lennart,
systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process
I ever played with.
Granted, systemd does a bit more that typical init, but I think
using *eleven plus megabytes* of malloced space is a bit much.
systemctl --all shows
On 06/10/2011 03:59 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
systemd does not take the system down when it crashes. It catches the
signal, dumps core and freezes, but does not exit.
^^^
So you just end up with a froze system instead of a
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:36 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Why does systemd link against libpam?
systemd does logins now, not /bin/login or gdm or ...?
to implement PAMName= (man systemd.exec)
I don't see any users of this feature on my F15.
I searched with Google and come up empty too.
But
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 16:11 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 06/10/2011 03:59 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
systemd does not take the system down when it crashes. It catches the
signal, dumps core and freezes, but does not exit.
On 06/10/2011 08:42 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:36 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Why does systemd link against libpam?
systemd does logins now, not /bin/login or gdm or ...?
to implement PAMName= (man systemd.exec)
I don't see any users of this feature on my F15.
I
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com wrote:
It's the *fourth* largest process on my system!
# ldd `which systemd`
1) Looking at what libraries a binary links to a is a terrible way to
optimize memory usage; try massif, say
2) It'd be a lot more productive to be
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 16:11 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 06/10/2011 03:59 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/10/2011 09:36 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
systemd does not take the system down when it crashes. It catches the
On 06/11/2011 12:36 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
Would be nice to see the systemd author join this discussion?
I am sure you can get answers when someone is off vacation. However
what would be really nice is to redirect systemd discussions to its
upstream mailing list. Fedora devel is hardly the
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2011 12:36 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
Would be nice to see the systemd author join this discussion?
I am sure you can get answers when someone is off vacation. However
what would be really nice is to redirect
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:44 PM, mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess that your reference to moving to upstream indicates that
systemd is now sufficiently established that discussion of problems is
an upstream issue for bug triage/fixing? I would imagine that the user
list may
On 06/10/2011 04:44 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Rahul Sundarammethe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2011 12:36 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
Would be nice to see the systemd author join this discussion?
I am sure you can get answers when someone is off vacation. However
On 06/10/2011 03:13 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
what would be really nice is to redirect systemd discussions to its
upstream mailing list. Fedora devel is hardly the best place for it.
Rahul
Beg to differ - rather vehemently too - politely but vehemently.
systemd is only available in
Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Mem total:2035840 anon:431208 map:78924 free:419084
[snip]
1 15384 11856 13664 1340 11752 0 132 /sbin/init
So this singleton process is taking 0.76% of your RAM. What the heck are you
complaining about?
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On 06/11/2011 05:20 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Lets be blunt here - he pushed very very very hard on these very lists
to get systemd in - now its in F15 and there are problems - so no
punting please. Upstream and fedora are the same for syste
That is a gross over simplification. Fedora is
101 - 178 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
