Steve Litt wrote:
> In all daemontools-inspired process supervisors, dependency handling,
> if you indeed need it, is just this easy:
>
> ==
> #!/bin/sh
> if ping ; then
> exec /path/to/app_depending_on_network
> fi
> sleep 1
> ===
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> Seriously, what else besides dependencies on other daemons that have to
> be running and some testing for the existence of certain (everything is)
> files would be necessary to pass to a parser script, which could be
> packaged with the respective init system?
Are we in
Steve Litt wrote:
> My opinion: If the init specification of a daemon exceeds 25 lines,
> that's a problem. Many sysvinit and OpenRC daemon init specifications
> are over 100 lines, especially if you take into account all the stuff
> imported from the "functions" file. I never want one of those l
emnin...@riseup.net wrote:
> Please do not take my question wrong (probably i am missing something):
> If it's that way, how can devuan then rely on debian as for packages
> etc.? At least in a forseeable future ... ?
The thing is that Debian is already there, pretty well complete, and the
major
Peter Olson wrote:
> So I cleared out another partition and moved the backup of my Debian 8.3 onto
> it. Ran update-grub, which found the backup in its new location.
>
> But, when I try to boot it grub is confused and is pinned to the old UUID of
> the
> root filesystem. (I have already updat
Go Linux wrote:
>
At the risk of dragging on this OT thread longer than it would have lasted ...
I can understand that you consider the topic inappropriate for the list. But
generally I'd considered this list a friendly place, where a certain amount of
'banter' would be tolerated.
In this c
Edward Bartolo wrote:
> Some may think I am insane, but sometimes even the company of a four
> legged friend can be beneficial.
Not at all, ours is just coming up to 2 year old now. It's fairly widely
accepted that pets can be very therapeutic.
___
D
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> But leaving these two general remarks aside, I don't quite understand
> what you wanted to express.
That "freedom of choice" is very important - as demonstrated by two posts
setting out the reason why (for the poster's situation) the correct option is
both one way and
Steve Litt wrote:
> There's a special place in hell for people using ambiguous
> abbreviations, acronyms, and nicknames.
You mean, like the whole IT industry - and in fact pretty well any industry ?
Such terms are routinely used because they make speech and writing less
verbose. I did my appre
Jaromil wrote:
>> Instead of an openRC effort at this point, I'd rather see a hook
>> for apt-get / aptitude / etc, to move all files specific to init
>> systems not being used to their own file hierarchies, eg.
>>
>> /var/cache/init-systems
>>/sysvinit
>> /etc
>> /lib
>> /us
KatolaZ wrote:
> Many people have kept wheezy on their production
> servers to see what happens with systemd in Jessie. And might prefer
> to migrate to Devuan eventually, if it has proved to be a credible
> option.
Put me down in that camp. I've a lot of systems on Wheezy - plus a few on older
Mitt Green wrote:
>> The current init system is old. Ancient.
>> We should all agree on it. Devuan is looking
>> for a new init system that is not systemd and my
>> personal choice for this task from now on is
>> Gentoo's OpenRC.
>
> Unix is old. Ancient. We should all agree on it.
> Devuan is
Didier Kryn wrote:
> You can configure cups through the web interface or by editing the config
> files. Editing the config files is easy, apart from understanding the meaning
> of the variables from their names. But there are howtos. For one-time actions
> like resuming operation of a printe
Gregory Nowak wrote:
> On a related note, I recently had to replace my almost 20-year-old hp
> laserJet 5l because the part that broke couldn't be replaced. So, I
> replaced it with a samsung m28253dw. I was struggling to configure
> everything how I wanted through a less than fully accessible we
Go Linux wrote:
> This is putting the cart before the horse IMO. It would be nice to get the
> beta out the door before focusing on ascii. Any chance some of that energy
> could be directed towards the beta release?
I'm kind-of on the fence here.
Part of me is saying yes, look forward to w
dev wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone could offer some clarity on how best to apply
> patches on Debian derived systems? There are so many options across apt-get
> and aptitude... I cannot make sense of them all:
>
> apt-get upgrade
> apt-get dist-upgrade
> apt-get safe-upgrade
> aptitude
I thought having a "big binary blob" wasn't supposed to be a problem ;-)
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-users/2016-04/msg00031.html
> [Xen-users] Debian 8.4, EFI, and systemd = Tricky
> ...
> My problem is that it hangs when trying so init systemd on dom0
> ...
> systemd is new to me. I
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> I'd still like an answer to this question: For the common use case of a
> so-called "desktop system", why should system processes be hidden from
> its owner by default unless said owner does something which is actively
> discouraged, IOW, "Who is trying to hide what here
Jim Murphy wrote:
> Did anyone else notice that at about 0726 UTC today
> the mail server, I believe, spit out 3 emails that have "been
> in hiding" for a while.
You are not alone in getting them.
> If I'm reading the 3 attachments correctly, they were received
> by the dng mail list server on
Boruch Baum wrote:
> Sorry to ruin the party, but I'll object to it because its just not a
> nice thing to do, and its an awful thing to mess up content on the fine
> site that is wikipedia.
+1 for that
Regardless of what people think of him, it's not a grown up or pleasant thing
to do.
>> The
Boruch Baum wrote:
> Sorry to ruin the party, but I'll object to it because its just not a
> nice thing to do, and its an awful thing to mess up content on the fine
> site that is wikipedia.
+1 for that
Regardless of what people think of him, it's not a grown up or pleasant thing
to do.
>> The
Stephan Seitz wrote:
> Äh, why do you need X11 forwarding for text work? For me text work is
> shell/vi/mutt/screen. I’m using these programs daily without the need for X11
> forwarding.
I don't, but sometimes it just happens that way.
> And as far as I was told things like VNC or RDP are an
Steve Litt wrote:
> Why this is important is that, to the extent this is perceived as an
> age thing (with the must-have pejorative "neckbeard" or "graybeard"),
> you give PoetterPoser more credibility when he characterizes systemd
> resistance as "you can't teach an old dog new tricks."
Indeed,
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> I disagree. I've used remote X forwarding many times, and found it ran
>> "quite nicely" with 400kbps upstream from my home ADSL. Obviously it
>> depends what you are doing, and "graphics intensive" stuff slows
>> enormously, but for anything "text and widgets" based it'
Teodoro Santoni wrote:
>> What did they replace X11 forwarding with? (I shudder to ask)
>
> Nothing afaik.
That would be the "we don't use it, therefore we don't care if anyone else uses
it - we'll just declare it broken behaviour and drop it" approach to backwards
compatibility.
Rainer We
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Simon Hobson writes:
>> Not really, but I don't see any sign of that as a question in the post I was
>> replying to !
>
> You said secure boot's security is blown out of the water because it's
> possible to run untrusted code un
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Simon Hobson writes:
>> Isn't it the bootloader that UEFI loads and runs, and as long as the
>> bootloader (Grub) is signed, then UEFI should boot it and grub can boot
>> anything you want. Kind of blasts the argument that secure boot is eith
Edward Bartolo wrote:
> I think, with a signed Linux kernel, UEFI Secure Boot can be made to
> load any other unsigned Linux kernel, which would imply, any
> distribution would be possible to be booted.
>
> How I imagine it can be done:[list]
> [*]boot partition would contain a signed Linux kern
Go Linux wrote:
> As did mine. And then a genius of an udev developer took care of it and made
> sure that the cameras ID_TYPE changed from "disk" to "generic", so no user
> but root could use the camera. Now it works again, but ...
Are, what you mean is "it worked until some genius *fixed* it
Arthur Marsh wrote:
> Doesn't snapshot.debian.org keep up until the last released versions of
> packages, including for architectures no longer supported? (Admittedly one
> would need to use packages.debian.org to find out what was the last supported
> version of a package for a different arch
Brad Campbell wrote:
>> But then I still have Squeeze and Lenny systems running (they aren't broken
>> ...) - don't think I have anything older than that !
>>
>
> I just bumped up against a problem with a squeeze system. It's ppc, and
> everyone has dropped the non-x86/x64 archives. That made
KatolaZ wrote:
> The vast majority of people I know who work with Linux
> servers are doing the best they can to keep old Wheezy intallations,
> and those who can't are switching to something else (either Devuan, or
> other systemd-free distros, or FreeBSD).
>
> I admit that my (very restricted)
Matthew Melton wrote:
> What you are describing is a state machine?
> Each run level is a stable state representing what is running (or supposed to
> be). Something needs to trigger (change of input or "change of runlevel")
> Each stable state has an "init" transition state (starting the servi
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> The abstract definition of 'runlevel' is (as far as I'm aware of it):
> "Set of processes supposed to be running".
That's what I understand it to be.
> Considering this, one can
> safely conclude that whatever 'Dennys' did, he certainly didn't to
> that. A somewhat educ
Steve Litt wrote:
> You'd be hugely surprised at how literally some states in the US
> interpret contracts. I live in (anti-employee) Florida, and a friend of
> mine here in Florida was advised by his lawyer to not work for Linux for
> the next 6 months because his former employer had a 6 month
>
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> But "the hardware" didn't "break". Certain vendor-supplied software
> reportedly ceases to function if certain EFI variables are deleted.
That is the sort of linguistic gymnastics that vendors use to get out of
accepting responsibility for stuff.
I think most people wou
KatolaZ wrote:
> I don't get why any of those occasional "sysadmin-wannabe" users you
> have described above would ever need to mess around with their UEFI by
> hand.
They don't. But certain tasks they run apparently can do - did someone mention
Grub updating it ?
So one scenario (which I thin
Rainer H. Rauschenberg wrote:
> I think this is the road that led to systemd -- if you think Linux needs
> to be "as easy as Windows" you tend to take away all the aspects that made
> it superior (in my view).
I think I didn't really express my position very well.
I'm not advocating "taking al
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..me, I do not see any point in keeping it mounted at all.
> Whenever such a need arises, it should be mounted read-only.
> If a need to write to /sys/firmware/efi/efivars should happen,
> the machine should first be taken off-line, backed-up etc out
> of production and int
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, maliscious agenda
> or be out of his mind" is a pretty standard way to (attempt to) handle
> a situation where someone ran out of arguments but doesn't feel like
> admitting that.
Not at all. I have a perfectly sound
Didier Kryn wrote:
>> for the real "general case",
>> someone who blindly trusts the advice of strangers despite he doesn't
>> understand it will end up getting himself in trouble sooner or later and
>> probably rather sooner than later.
>
>Eg nearly any client of a physician, a lawyer...
:
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Dave Turner writes:
>> There seems to be an assumption that everybody is a 'power user' and
>> knows exactly what they are doing.
>> The reality is not like that at all.
>> Leaving nasty surprises for the unwary and inexperienced is at worst
>> malicious and at best inco
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Or the third option - mount r/o and remount r/w when needed.
>
> As I wrote in the original text, that's a extremely bad idea because
> this means it may suddenly be affected by an already running command
> never supposed to work with it.
The window for that must be "v
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> There are really only two options:
>
> 1. Don't mount or mount r/o and require user interfaction prior to
> working with these variables.
>
> 2. Mount r/w and expect people messing around with the fs as superuser
> to know what they're doing.
Or the third option -
Jaromil wrote:
> meanwhile, on the background, the usual bullying goes on among the
> systemd hooligans, sarcastically liquidating the concern with some
> cynical remarks, as if it would be a deserved punition for users
> caught into a bricked laptop rather than an erased filesystem:
>
> http://
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> For the fun of it, I just ran an "apt-get install --install-recommends
> --no-install-recommends" and it chose to not install the recommends.
> The same with contradicting lines in apt.conf(.d/*):
>
> APT::Install-Recommends "0";
> APT::Install-Recommends "1";
>
> Thi
richard lucassen wrote:
> I'd rather go for a, like Tobias suggested, a libsystemd telling
> the package that is linked against, that it runs on a non-systemd
> system.
> But maybe that solution is too simple, clear and wrong.
I think it's a *possible* solution and has certain attractions - but
richard lucassen wrote:
> I'm very pleased to see that someone is building a libsystemdfree xorg.
> But what about security updates? And what about future versions? Who is
> going to do that? What about the robustness of Devuan? Don't get me
> wrong, I really like the Devuan project, but wouldn't
Wim wrote:
> I would take a look at that SATA cable AGAIN. These break far too often. And
> when they break, they often don't break completely. Symptoms vary from weird
> boot problems, to the OS going corrupt, to a general slow drive.
No, definitely a "hard" fault. While trying to deal with i
Wim wrote:
> I still have my previous model, I suppose I ought to try a native install on
> it - and perhaps see if I can get OS X running as a VM.
>
> I would prefer dual booting personally, since running OSX in a VM isn't
> always perfect. Fi, access to external hardware over USB, like audio
William C Vaughan wrote:
> I have been flamed before because of my posts on this mailing list
That's inexcusable.
> I think that ultimately, EFF or the GNU folks will need to pursue lobbying
> for legislation to prevent hardware companies from imposing restrictions upon
> software installs by
Robert Storey wrote:
> So maybe I should ask: Have you tried installing Linux on your MacBook? If
> so, how was the experience? Any advice about that? Any nonsense to deal with
> similar to Microsoft's "secure boot"? (if you answered those questions
> already in another post, I"m sorry, I miss
Robert Storey wrote:
> Since the Mac doesn't have a ctrl key, the following was a particularly
> relevant post:
Really ?
Mine does, there between the fn and alt keys - standard UK keyboard on a
MacBook Pro. I think it will be model/keyboard specific. You can always plug in
a different keyboar
Mitt Green wrote:
> They can request a refund before activating the
> license, but will actually receive a smaller amount of
> money than they spent, if some at all at all.
I recall reading how one person, after a fight to get anything, got much more !
This isn't the case I was thinking of, but
Mat wrote:
>> That's the logical way to do it - the init script(s) should be part of the
>> package. The downside of that is the requirement for every package
>> maintainer (team) to understand and support multiple init systems - or for
>> someone supporting an init system to become a maintain
dev1fanboy wrote:
> So for having our own values we are a "hardcore cult", how dare we voice our
> opinions or stand up for our values (like anyone else in the free software
> community, btw). Better yet, let's go back to debian because otherwise we're
> elitists.
That's not what I said - a
KatolaZ wrote:
> Well, not everybody pays his bills developing open source software,
> but if I were a Debian developer, who had adhered to the debian Social
> Contract [1], I would find it difficult to organise a fest to
> celebrate Microsoft offering Debian as an option on its
> azure-whatever.
Daniel Reurich wrote:
> perhaps doing the same thing as init-system-helpers dh_systemd package
> to add support for runit into each respective package.
That's the logical way to do it - the init script(s) should be part of the
package. The downside of that is the requirement for every package m
Didier Kryn wrote:
>It's absolutely amazing that one can be a Debian developper and a member
> of Microsoft in the same time. Yes, that's an ethical break down of the whole
> Debian project.
I think some people are reading more into this than they should.
There is no reason whatsoever that
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> - Some headers to tell utilities what runlevels the service should run
>> at, and dependencies.
>
> That's a LSB invention. It's a grotesque travesty as it uses 'magic
> comments' to embed a declarative mini programming language in an init
> script which is only ever us
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> The commands which are actually executed via these S- and K-links come
> from individual packages and ultimatively contain whatever the people
> responsible for that considered sensible. Which is usually a pretty
> arbitrary assortment of more or less useless code which a
Didier Kryn wrote:
> I don't think Grub2 is all about pretty colours though. The veteran admin
> likes to have a bootloader which is easy to configure, but the random admin,
> likes to have a working multi-boot bootloader at the end of the installation.
Indeed, and when ${random_admin} has a m
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> By now, the concept of unprivileged local users is a little obsolete anyway.
>
> Today, hosts generally serve only one unix user, there generally is only one
> local user of one host, and that local user is the user that owns everything
> valuable. So is the a real po
Ozi Traveller wrote:
> Debian Jessie boot the slowest.
Ah, that'll be because of stuff that hasn't been "improved" into systemd yet
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Ozi Traveller wrote:
> I also have a couple of non-systemd box connected to the same modem, and they
> boot to a desktop without the wait.
It's probably not systemd vs non-systemd. While it does cause me a bit of a
choke to defend systemd, it's probably not specifically systemd that's causing
Ozi Traveller wrote:
> There's certainly a pause when boot, if my modem hasn't quite connected.
>
> And if I start the modem first, so it's connected properly, then it just
> boots.
That could be something much more mundane.
If you have no internet connection, or worse, and IP address but no
On 9 Jan 2016, at 17:02, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
> 5 - have udev issue manual (admin-chosen) persistent names by mac address
Which, IMO, is the most logical option.
Lets face it, how often do people actually change hardware ? And when hardware
is changed, it's a trivial task to do the one-o
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> That's what I've always assumed - and IMO it seems like a sensible
>> idea. After all, people don't generally object to the idea of programs
>> calling various libraries instead of "doing their own thing".
>
> Well, I certainly do object to this idea: Each program still
Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> An experienced sysadmin who has to do this type of thing several times a
>> day would have designed this syntax for ease of use. The systemd
>> developers did not do this, presumably because they do not have to type
>> these commands several times a day.
>
> I would no
Linux O'Beardly wrote:
> While many here would probably say it's not a good idea to run servers on
> Devuan until a production release, I am already running it on a number of
> servers.
That's good to know - I need to find time to do some testing myself.
> R. W. Rodolico wrote:
> BTW, while
Steve Litt wrote:
>> Therefore, if you want to mount a disk partition, you either
>> need the necessary drivers and filesystem built-in the kernel or have
>> them in the initrd/initramfs (under /lib/modules). Having the module
>> on the disk won't help -- egg and chicken.
>>
>> Didier
>
Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
>> But what's the point of having modules "at the end of [the kernel] image"?
>> You can just compile-in them.
>
> Simple, It's to be able to turn a packaged, distribution supplied kernel into
> one that will successfully boot on obscure hardware - to be able to inje
I wrote:
> I have worked with Unix systems in the past with separate /usr filesystem
> (SCO OpenServer 5 - ahh, nostalgia). Back then we had to create a boot and
> root floppy (yes I know some youngsters have probably never seen one) and I
> can recall the problems I found making enough room on
Clarke Sideroad wrote:
> I see little choice but to make the merged bin option available, after
> all this is all about choice, but for gosh sakes it should not be the
> default.
The issue - as I see it - is much the same as with systemd. If the upstream
stuff adopts it, then it becomes a lot
John Rigg wrote:
> Wasn't the original reason for having an initrd that the boot loader,
> probably LILO at the time, couldn't handle a kernel image above a
> certain size?
I suspect you are thinking of the problem that it couldn't access sectors past
a certain point due to limitation in the BI
Steve Litt wrote:
> This idea came to me while I wrote an anti-merge rant a few minutes
> ago...
I was going to reply to that, I'll reply here instead ...
First off, thanks for answering a question I hadn't asked but had always
wondered about the answer to. I "sort of" knew what initramfs was,
Mitt Green wrote:
> I reckon as long as his Fedora boots, he doesn't care.
I think that's the key reason.
Linus is concerned with the kernel - and while I suspect he has personal
preferences about what is run on top of that, he's "detached" enough to take
the attitude that what people want to
Didier Kryn wrote:
>Down to zero?
Depends on what the system is doing !
I've just checked several of my systems, one showed 12k when I logged in and
dropped to 0. OK, that's a router so doesn't do much disk I/O - just a bit of
logging.
Another (my mail server amongst other things) showed 3
Didier Kryn wrote:
>That's the logic one would naively expect but I'm not sure of it. I'm
> afraid the data remains in the cache and not backed-up to disk until some
> process needs room in the cache. You can do the experiment of writing data to
> a usb memory stick and then wait long aft
Steve Litt wrote:
> I did a test. I created hello.txt, put "hello world" in it, saved it,
> and yanked out the thumb three seconds later. Of course the
> whole /media/sdd1 tree vanished. When I plugged in the thumb again,
> hello.txt contained exactly what I'd typed in it. Now of course, this
> i
Didier Kryn wrote:
> There remains a fundamental problem with automatic mount/umount. While
> automounting is safe, auto-unmounting is not if it is triggered by device
> removal.
> Unmounting must be done *before* removing the device if anything has been
> written to it, otherwise data is los
Steve Litt wrote:
> With /dev/sd? you can at least try to guess which one got
> plugged in last, and then verify.
It's certainly no warse (probably better actually) than the Windows world where
it could be E:, F:, or something else - and it could even change depending
which USB port it was plu
Linux O'Beardly wrote:
> While many here would probably say it's not a good idea to run servers on
> Devuan until a production release, I am already running it on a number of
> servers.
That's good to know - I need to find time to do some testing myself.
> R. W. Rodolico wrote:
> BTW, while
John Hughes wrote:
> Yes, the impression I get around here is that this is a religious argument
> for most of you.
>
> I had hopes for Devuan, but the lack of rational thinking convinces me that
> it's going nowhere.
There's no lack of rational thinking.
People here don't want to run SystemD,
Dragan FOSS wrote:
> If the group is so weak, that one opponent may threaten it, then something is
> wrong with that group, right?
No.
As pointed out, the "discussion" has distracted people from the task in hand.
No-one here has to justify their desire to be systemd free to anyone - yet
that'
Mitt Green wrote:
> Go Linux wrote:
>
>> Just a heads up. None of your emails are coming through. Not even in spam.
>> I >only know that you've posted when I see quotes in the responses. I have
>> a >yahoo address for this list and it has been a problem for me too.
>
> The same thing abou
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> You know, I am certainly not the person who wouldn't agree to the
> concept of breaking eggs to make an omelette. But it's completely
> unnacceptable to go to the supermarket and break everybody else's eggs
> too, just because you want to make yourself one little omelette
Edward Bartolo wrote:
>> No matter what you believe about this, overriding a command with itself
>> is a pointless exercise. dh_auto_clean will be invoked as part of the
>> 'dh clean' sequence, cf
>
> Please, refrain from using offensive and vulgar expressions. 'cf' is
> "complete fuck" which im
hough it's a "stuff it in the cloud and it's an SEP*" fix for
all security and availability issues.
Seriously, I have seen cases where "backup" is implemented as "syncs with a
cloud account, no further thought required"
* SEP = Someone Else's Problem
Simon Ho
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> If the fear of loosing your mail archive is the only reason to avoid
> IMAP: Many IMAP capable mail clients support synchronizing to local
> folders. For those that don't, you can easily create a local (or remote)
> backup with isync/mbsync which could even be evoked by t
Steve Litt wrote:
> You might wonder why I'm so partial to IMAP: A fair question indeed.
I think a fairer question would be why anyone would be against it !
OK, there's one reason - and that's if you are not running you own mail server
in which case you are reliant on your provider not losing y
shraptor wrote:
> I must admit I am really clueless to what is considered good practice in
> mailing-lists.
...
> I am not rude on purpose but I truly don't know mailing-list style of
> interaction.
> Should I delete this or keep this? Write here or write there?
In "days of old" it was accepte
Gregory Nowak wrote:
> From what I read, the 2nd generation B has one 10/100 ethernet port
> which is a network card on one of the pi's usb ports. Besides that, it
> does have four usb ports, and you can hook up hubs to those as well of
> course.
That is correct - one 10/100 ethernet which is a
Mitt Green wrote:
> I mean, that's something normal, neither years in the field
> nor degree won't make you smart and experienced
> (years are not equal to experience) alone, something
> has to be inside your skull.
That echoes something I wrote off-list to the OP.
Having a degree is good becau
Jaromil wrote:
> Of the three perhaps only Linus did, after
> all he is an active programmer and reads
> regularly code. But he is refraining from
> doing universal statements pro or against
> the whole of systemd, while interacting
> on details, which I think is wise to do for
> a leader.
I sus
Mitt Green wrote:
> But I also have libsystemd0 file in /etc/apt/preferences.d containing:
>
>
>
> Package: libsystemd0
> Pin: origin ""
> Pin-Priority: -1
>
>
Does anyone have any tips for getting more meaningful output from apt when
something fails
Didier Kryn wrote:
> NTP does not adjust the RTC brutally; it seems to adjust slowly the frequency
> so that synchronization happens without the process being noticeable to other
> apps - it can take hours. On shutdown it saves the RTC settings in
> /var/lib/ntp/ntp.drift, and (AFAIU) /var/lib
Didier Kryn wrote:
>>> Why the hell did they invent suspend-to-disk?
>> I take it you don't like the idea ?
> No. I don't dislike the idea. I admit it is brillant.
I'm confused then - but that's not hard !
> This leads to the conclusion: boot time doesn't matter if you never shut
> down, bu
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Why the hell did they invent suspend-to-disk?
I take it you don't like the idea ?
My only laptop is OS X, and I tend to leave so much open (text files of
temporary notes, a gazzillion web pages/tabs, mail (home), mail (work), and a
few others. To boot takes several minute
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> ... but the conclusion is "Whoever believes parallelization beyond starpar
> will improve 'booting speed' for this machine is sadly mistaken".
I've done no measurements, but my "gut feeling" is that for the servers I
manage (and my OS X laptop), the limiting factor is
301 - 400 of 428 matches
Mail list logo
