On Monday 17 Feb 2014 07:01:53 Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
> 17.02.2014 00:19, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff
> > wrote: [ snip ]
> >
> >> Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of
> >> systemd? ;)
> >
> > As I said to Tan
On 23.02.2014 00:22, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
On 22.02.2014 21:21, Stroller wrote:
[ snip ]
I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. … PS. Yes – it’s free
of
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
> On 22.02.2014 21:21, Stroller wrote:
[ snip ]
>> I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and
>> professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. … PS. Yes – it’s free
>> of any minix code, and it has a multi-threade
On 22.02.2014 21:21, Stroller wrote:
On Sat, 22 February 2014, at 10:38 am, Yuri K. Shatroff
wrote:
On 22.02.2014 11:40, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
[ ... ] Even as the complex beast it has become systemd is still
simpler than the alternative of having abominations of unreliable
shell scripts c
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
[snip]
> And here we have a design issue. I already pointed this issue in this
> discussion:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org/msg144144.html
> Though it was completely ignored by you. I understand: it is easier
> to
On 22/02/2014 18:37, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-21 4:58 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:32:07 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Ok, so, since it really is so simple, wouldn't it be easier to
>>> implement this as an eselect module then, as opposed to creating a
>>> bunch of separat
On Sat, 22 February 2014, at 10:38 am, Yuri K. Shatroff
wrote:
> On 22.02.2014 11:40, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> Even as the complex beast it has become systemd is still simpler than the
>> alternative of having abominations of unreliable shell scripts checking to
>> see
>> which v
On 2014-02-21 4:58 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:32:07 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
Ok, so, since it really is so simple, wouldn't it be easier to
implement this as an eselect module then, as opposed to creating a
bunch of separate profiles?
profiles handle USE flags, eselect do
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:40:46 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Of course the larger a project is the *potential* number of bugs
> increases, but so what? With enough developers, users and testers, all
> bugs are *potentially* squashed.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed, but I know of enough large
On 02/22/2014 01:21 PM, thegeezer wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 08:33 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Fri, February 21, 2014 18:33, thegeezer wrote:
>>> On 02/20/2014 08:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>
>>> .. setting systemd to log to syslog to make transitions smoother (as
>>> logs are lost on reboot by def
On 02/21/2014 08:33 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Fri, February 21, 2014 18:33, thegeezer wrote:
>> On 02/20/2014 08:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>
>> .. setting systemd to log to syslog to make transitions smoother (as
>> logs are lost on reboot by default)
> Eeerh, logs are lost on reboot?
until you
On 22.02.2014 11:40, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
[ ... ]
Even as the complex beast it has become systemd is still simpler than the
alternative of having abominations of unreliable shell scripts checking to see
which version of grep and sed is used to split the command line, or whether
the system use
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:14 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Thu, February 20, 2014 06:34, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Tue, February 18, 2014 18:12, Canek Peláez ValdÃ
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Michael Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:40:46 -0600
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> But I'm going to save you some bucks: there is nothing fishy.
>>
>> Carry on with the wires on the tin hat.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> Perfect. So that nails that bugab
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:14 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thu, February 20, 2014 06:34, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> On Tue, February 18, 2014 18:12, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
Of course the larger a project
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:32:07 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Ok, so, since it really is so simple, wouldn't it be easier to
> implement this as an eselect module then, as opposed to creating a
> bunch of separate profiles?
profiles handle USE flags, eselect does not. Of course, you can use
eselect to c
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:40:46 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
[...]
> But I'm going to save you some bucks: there is nothing fishy.
>
> Carry on with the wires on the tin hat.
>
> Regards.
Perfect. So that nails that bugaboo as well.
All is good, then, absolutely nothing to see here.
Thanks
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
[ snip ]
> If systemd truly is, as you say "taking over and devouring the linux world"
Mark, although I agree with much of your mail (but not all), I don't
think is fair how you are treating Tanstaafl; he never said that.
Regards.
--
C
On Thu, February 20, 2014 16:16, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 20/02/2014 11:16, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
>>
>>
>> 20.02.2014 09:24, Canek Peláez Valdés пиÑеÑ:
>>> [ snip ]
but I do not see the point, beyond as a nice gimmick.
>>>
>>> Well, I *do* see a point. Many points, actually. You want
On Fri, February 21, 2014 18:33, thegeezer wrote:
> On 02/20/2014 08:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> .. setting systemd to log to syslog to make transitions smoother (as
> logs are lost on reboot by default)
Eeerh, logs are lost on reboot?
I only had (it died last weekend) one (yes, ONE) machine that
On Thu, February 20, 2014 06:24, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:50 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Tue, February 18, 2014 15:37, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:54 AM, J. Roeleveld
>>> wrote:
>> Same question applies, can I disable these c
On Thu, February 20, 2014 06:34, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Tue, February 18, 2014 18:12, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>> Of course the larger a project is the *potential* number of bugs
>>> increases, but so what?
On 2014-02-21 12:33 PM, thegeezer wrote:
On 02/20/2014 08:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Thinking about this more, since apparently using a separate profile
may just be 'overkill', how about something simpler, like, for
example, using eselect...
Something like:
# eselect init list
Available init s
On 02/20/2014 08:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>
> Thinking about this more, since apparently using a separate profile
> may just be 'overkill', how about something simpler, like, for
> example, using eselect...
>
> Something like:
>
> # eselect init list
> Available init systems:
> [1] OpenRC *
>
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:02:31 -0500
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 10:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl
> > wrote:
> >> Sorry, Canek, no offense was intended, but if you go back and
> >> re-read your 'extremely overly enthusiastic' post (this plus t
On 2014-02-21 9:28 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
It is one thing entirely to say you don't like some software, and
another thing entirely to obligate everyone else in the world to
never depend on it.
All myself and others have been insisting on is that systemd proponents
be prevented from unil
On 2014-02-20 4:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Thinking about this more, since apparently using a separate
profile may just be 'overkill', how about something simpler, like,
for example, using eselect...
Something like:
# eselect init list
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 10:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>>> So, please, don't take it as an insult. In fact you have done a very good
>>> job of patiently spelling out the advantages of syste
On 2014-02-20 10:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Sorry, Canek, no offense was intended, but if you go back and re-read your
'extremely overly enthusiastic' post (this plus the content is why I
referred to it as a 'rant'), while I agree with mos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/19/14 14:37, Gevisz wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:53:12 +0400
> the wrote:
>
> On 02/18/14 17:56, Gevisz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz
>>>
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:36:15 +0800 Mark David Dumlao wrote:
[...]
> > So, please, don't take it as an insult. In fact you have done a very good
> > job of patiently spelling out the advantages of systemd, to the point I'm no
> > longer afraid of it taking over and devouring the linux world.
>
> If
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> If udev wants systemd, and you don't, but you want to continue using
> udev, it's _your_ job to look for a method or patch or package or
> script that makes it work.
That's already done. It's called eudev. :-D
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I sai
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 12:43 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2014-02-19 2:04 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
For such a profile to be legitimate, systemd would have to be cho
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Michael Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:37:09 -0800
> Michael Higgins wrote:
>
>> Okay, I'll go re-wire my tin hat now. Hope someone found this amusing.
>
> One other thought I'd has was, well, as long as systemd doesn't, like,
> implement some kind of net
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Michael Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:38:46 -0600
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>> > On 2014-02-20 4:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> No, actually, I think whatever is defined as t
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:37:09 -0800
Michael Higgins wrote:
> Okay, I'll go re-wire my tin hat now. Hope someone found this amusing.
One other thought I'd has was, well, as long as systemd doesn't, like,
implement some kind of net protocol, so to make it possible to ship
logs from systemdjournalc
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:38:46 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Tanstaafl
> wrote:
> > On 2014-02-20 4:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No, actually, I think whatever is defined as the current default
> >>> should dictate which group should be requi
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 4:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>
>>> No, actually, I think whatever is defined as the current default should
>>> dictate which group should be required to do the work.
>
>
>> I think this is where we think differently (regar
On 2014-02-20 4:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
No, actually, I think whatever is defined as the current default should
dictate which group should be required to do the work.
I think this is where we think differently (regarding this particular
point). The work must be done by *whomever* wa
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Tanstaafl
wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 1:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> The moment I saw that the profile is already done, I changed my
>> mind; the people using systemd ALREADY did the work (which seems to be
>> trivial, BTW; I didn't knew that either), theref
On 2014-02-20 1:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
The moment I saw that the profile is already done, I changed my
mind; the people using systemd ALREADY did the work (which seems to be
trivial, BTW; I didn't knew that either), therefore no one is trying
forcing anyone to do work, then a systemd
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 10:55 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> while I agree with most everything you said, your primary point -
>>> that it should be the people who *don't* want systemd d
On 2014-02-20 10:55 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
while I agree with most everything you said, your primary point -
that it should be the people who *don't* want systemd doing all of
the work - was backwards, and that was what I wanted to poin
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
>
>
> 20.02.2014 09:24, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>> but I do not see the point, beyond as a nice gimmick.
>>
>>
>> Well, I *do* see a point. Many points, actually. You want the logs for
>> SSH, from February 12 to Februa
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 12:43 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2014-02-19 2:04 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
For such a profile to be legitimate, systemd would have to be cho
On 20/02/2014 11:16, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
>
>
> 20.02.2014 09:24, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет:
>> [ snip ]
>>> but I do not see the point, beyond as a nice gimmick.
>>
>> Well, I *do* see a point. Many points, actually. You want the logs for
>> SSH, from February 12 to February 15? Done:
>>
>> j
On 2014-02-20 12:43 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2014-02-19 2:04 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
For such a profile to be legitimate, systemd would have to be chosen as
the default.
Ridiculous. Forget about Canek's rant...
This is about *
20.02.2014 09:24, Canek Peláez Valdés пишет:
[ snip ]
but I do not see the point, beyond as a nice gimmick.
Well, I *do* see a point. Many points, actually. You want the logs for
SSH, from February 12 to February 15? Done:
journalctl --since=2014-02-12 --until=2014-02-15 -u sshd.service
N
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-19 2:04 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>
>> For such a profile to be legitimate, systemd would have to be chosen as
>> the default.
>
> Ridiculous. Forget about Canek's rant...
>
> This is about *choice*. Also, I would argue the *opposit
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:00 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Tue, February 18, 2014 18:12, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
[ snip ]
>> Of course the larger a project is the *potential* number of bugs
>> increases, but so what? With enough developers, users and testers, all
>> bugs are *potentially* sq
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:50 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Tue, February 18, 2014 15:37, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:54 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> As I do not have systemd installed on any machine, I can't check the
>>> man-pages.
>>
>> They are online [1].
>
> Usefu
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-18 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler wrote:
>>
>> First I thought that with systemd I have to use all the things shipped
>> with systemd like journald (which I don't like because I think that a
>> binary file for syslogs is just broken) so I
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:54:08 -0600, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > There are technical arguments for and against systemd, which is why
> > this thread was started, rhetoric about forcing default profiles on
> > people when there is no such thing as a default profile only serve
> > to cloud the real is
On 19.02.2014 09:50, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> Additionally, the use of "tail -f" and "grep" allows me to check the logs
> real-time for debugging purposes.
> Having to use a seperate tool that converts some proprietary binary format
> to human readable/scriptable single-line logs makes no sense.
Thi
On 2014-02-18 4:05 PM, Sebastian Beßler wrote:
First I thought that with systemd I have to use all the things shipped
with systemd like journald (which I don't like because I think that a
binary file for syslogs is just broken) so I looked into the config
files of systemd, deactivated journald a
On 2014-02-19 2:04 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
For such a profile to be legitimate, systemd would have to be chosen as
the default.
Ridiculous. Forget about Canek's rant...
This is about *choice*. Also, I would argue the *opposite of what Canek
is saying in this last rant...
If he and other
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 + thegeezer wrote:
[...]
> >> For all this talk about technical details,
> >> nobody seems to notice the marketing
> > A few people including myself have noted it earlier.
> >
> >> that's going on and frankly it disgusts me.
> > And me too.
> >
> >
> I have to conf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/19/2014 04:50 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:34:35 -0600, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
>>> How is putting systemd setting in a profile that a user has to
>>> consciously choose to use forcing anything on anyone? Profiles
>>> are
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:34:35 -0600, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > How is putting systemd setting in a profile that a user has to
> > consciously choose to use forcing anything on anyone? Profiles are
> > the essence of choice but it appears you only want the choices you
> > approve of to be availabl
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:53:12 +0400
the wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/18/14 17:56, Gevisz wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz
> >> wrote: [ snip ]
> >>> How can you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/19/2014 03:02 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:04:14 -0600, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
Or to create a non-systemd profile :)
>
>> For such a profile to be legitimate, systemd would have to be
>> chosen as the default.
>
> Q
On 02/19/2014 09:06 AM, Gevisz wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:04:14 -0600
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
>> On 02/18/2014 12:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko
>>> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> Y
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:04:14 -0600
Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 02/18/2014 12:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatev
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:04:14 -0600, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> >> Or to create a non-systemd profile :)
> For such a profile to be legitimate, systemd would have to be chosen as
> the default.
Quite the opposite, to have a separate systemd profile would mean that
systemd was not the default, oth
On Tue, February 18, 2014 18:12, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andrew Savchenko
> wrote:
> [...]
>> Every decent project has QA and unit tests one way or another. But
>> the larger project is, the more bugs it has. And I do not want bugs
>> in PID 1, that's why i
On Tue, February 18, 2014 15:37, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:54 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> As I do not have systemd installed on any machine, I can't check the
>> man-pages.
>
> They are online [1].
Useful, but not necessary for this discussion.
>> But, if that is th
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 02/18/2014 12:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wan
On Wed, February 19, 2014 00:06, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 18/02/2014 14:16, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Tue, February 18, 2014 12:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> It's a little more complex than just that. It's an auth service and
>>> user
>>> are frequently added, removed and modified. The daemon does
On 02/18/2014 12:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask
to respect mine as well. That's why I propo
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 18/02/2014 23:32, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> And you always can run other legacy logger alongside the journal, and
>> have both things; binary logs for fast retrieval, and text logs if you
>> so desire.
>
> Please do not use that phrase
On 18/02/2014 14:16, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Tue, February 18, 2014 12:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 18/02/2014 11:52, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> On Tue, February 18, 2014 10:47, Alan McKinnon wrote:
What I do run into is daemons that drop privs on start up, like
tac_plus. Unwary new sysad
On 18/02/2014 13:54, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> Shouldn't sysadmins use the init-scripts for that?
>> > If done correctly, permissions should not be an issue.
>> >
>> > Restarting services without keeping file ownership into account will
>> > always cause issues. Regardless of the init-system used
On 18/02/2014 23:32, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> And you always can run other legacy logger alongside the journal, and
> have both things; binary logs for fast retrieval, and text logs if you
> so desire.
>
Please do not use that phrase legacy in this context.
Classic syslogging is not legacy.
Am Dienstag, 18.02.2014 um 14:09
schrieb Tanstaafl :
> >> I can't for the life of me think of any reason that server daemons
> >> like postfix, dovecot, apache, etc would or could ever *require*
> >> systemd.
>
> > Neither of those packages would ever require systemd (nor any init
> > system).
On Feb 18, 2014 3:05 PM, "Sebastian Beßler"
wrote:
>
> On 16.02.2014 21:56, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
> Hello List.
>
> > and all are linked (not compile&link) in such a manner that you can't
> > just pick and choose. Oh no, you get the full treatment if you like it
> > or not.
>
> A few weeks
On 16.02.2014 21:56, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Hello List.
> and all are linked (not compile&link) in such a manner that you can't
> just pick and choose. Oh no, you get the full treatment if you like it
> or not.
A few weeks ago I wanted to see what systemd is really like so I started
a littl
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:07:12 +0400, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
>> > Then write. Just be aware that to write a systemd profile, you need to
>> > use systemd.
>>
>> Or to create a non-systemd profile :)
>
> We already have many of those, because
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-18 1:54 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:> On
> Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> I'm curious as to the extent of these programs, and to what extent
>>> they *truly* require systemd.
>
>> I don't understand what you me
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:07:12 +0400, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > Then write. Just be aware that to write a systemd profile, you need to
> > use systemd.
>
> Or to create a non-systemd profile :)
We already have many of those, because systemd is not the default. Part
of making it the default, if
On 2014-02-18 1:54 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:> On
Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> I'm curious as to the extent of these programs, and to what extent
>> they *truly* require systemd.
> I don't understand what you mean by "the extent of these programs".
Sorry, worded that
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-18 1:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> Yet again, I respect ones right to use whate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/18/14 17:56, Gevisz wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz
>> wrote: [ snip ]
>>> How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you
>>> say below, you
On 2014-02-18 1:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask
to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separa
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:49:47 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > The whole deep integration approach and lack of
>> > inter-module boundaries doesn't allow one to write replaceable blocks
>> > without crazy hacking.
>>
>> Well, then go
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask
>> > to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate systemd
>> > profile for those willing t
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask
> > to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate systemd
> > profile for those willing to use it.
>
> Then write. Just be aware that to write a systemd
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
> I'll try to be short.
[ snip ]
> You, as a person declaring ability to code, must understand what
> removal/substitution of components is important for.
In some cases it is; in some others it just creates a chaos, like it
was the plumbin
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:49:47 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > The whole deep integration approach and lack of
> > inter-module boundaries doesn't allow one to write replaceable blocks
> > without crazy hacking.
>
> Well, then go and show them how it's done. And please don't say that
> "it's al
I'll try to be short.
On 18.02.2014 05:09, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
The whole point of creating new software is making things easier. Easier to
use, easier to maintain, easier to remove.
Well, systemd is easier to use after a little time learning how it
works. And it seems to be easier to ma
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz wrote:
>> [ snip ]
>> > How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say below,
>> > you do not care about probabil
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:05:03 +0200 Gevisz wrote:
>> > I mean, I myself know a thing or two about computing and Linux, and I
>> > promote systemd (and nobody pays me, BTW), but obviously you don't
>> > need to believe in my credentials.
>>
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:43:22 +0400
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:05:03 +0200 Gevisz wrote:
> > > I mean, I myself know a thing or two about computing and Linux,
> > > and I promote systemd (and nobody pays me, BTW), but obviously
> > > you don't need to believe in my credential
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
[...]
> Bugs are not equal. They differ in at least two dimensions:
> significance depending on the component affected and severity of the
> bug itself.
I've never said that they don't have different significance, severity
or scope. I said
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz wrote:
> [ snip ]
> > How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say below,
> > you do not care about probabilities?
>
> By writing correct code?
Real world code without mis
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:05:03 +0200 Gevisz wrote:
> > I mean, I myself know a thing or two about computing and Linux, and I
> > promote systemd (and nobody pays me, BTW), but obviously you don't
> > need to believe in my credentials.
>
> I have said you, he is just an unpayed fanatic systemd promot
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:35:34 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
[...]
> >> >>> Complexity means bugs.
> >> >> Bugs get reported, bugs get fixes. Life goes on.
> >>
> >> You didn't answered this, did you?
> >
> > Bugs are different.
>
> Bugs are bugs, period. And they get reported and fixed.
Bugs ar
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:46:14 +0800 Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> init scripts, in general, are ad-hoc, quirky, and incomplete
> implementations of service supervision in bash. They're reliable so
> long as the daemon can be relied on to advertise one or all of its
> processes in a pid file. Thing is,
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:09:40 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > How Integrated? The TCP/IP stack *is* integrated. But it is *protocol*
>> > integration, *standards* integration not *software* integration. You do
>> > want
>> > tight in
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:54 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Sun, February 16, 2014 22:16, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> wrote:
>>> oh? I can pipe that output into cat or any any daemon I like? Doesn't
>>> look like so.
>>
>> But it does, yo
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:30:42 -0600
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Gevisz wrote:
> [ snip ]
> > How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say
> > below, you do not care about probabilities?
>
> By writing correct code?
No, by arguing that fixin
101 - 200 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
