Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 04:24:40 +0200 Alex Suykov wrote: > Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 07:23:09PM +0800, Casper Ti. Vector wrote: > > > I also wonder if someone on this mailing list is interested in > > actually implementing a cgroup-based babysitter as is outlined in > > the post, perhaps packaged

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

> https://github.com/arsv/minibase/blob/master/src/misc/runcg.c > > It's really simple. > > I don't think a tool like this has any actual uses, other than in > arguments with systemd fans, but I guess that alone could justify > its existance. Thanks for this link this is really interesting.

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 07:23:09PM +0800, Casper Ti. Vector wrote: > I also wonder if someone on this mailing list is interested in actually > implementing a cgroup-based babysitter as is outlined in the post, > perhaps packaged together with standalone workalikes of the cgroup > chainloaders

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 00:54:07 +0100 Oliver Schad wrote: > Disclaimer: this has race-conditions by design. systemd has them as > well. No, they don't say that of course. You can't read the tasks > atomically and change their state to stopped, freeze or whatever. So > they always could fork away.

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 12:32:27 + "Laurent Bercot" wrote: > As for cgroups-related chainloaders, I could probably write some in > s6-linux-utils, but wasn't the cgroups interface designed to make > sure those operations are trivial to implement as small scripts? I changed in the past sysv init

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:29:13PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > What is slew? I'd guess this thing: https://gitlab.com/CasperVector/slew

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 21:54:11 +0800 "Casper Ti. Vector" wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:57:35PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > > Very, very nice! You should publicize this. > > . > It seems to be downvoted, which may be unsurprising given the

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 01:52:58 +0800 "Casper Ti. Vector" wrote: > In addition to providing arguments suitable as stock replies to > systemd proponents, that post also contains steps to build a small > example system based on s6/s6-rc/slew, which updates the Ubuntu > example in

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 09:54:11PM +0800, Casper Ti. Vector wrote: > . > It seems to be downvoted, which may be unsurprising given the generic > sentiment toward systemd in r/linux. Anyway, as of now I cannot load > the post page (perhaps because

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:57:35PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > Very, very nice! You should publicize this. . It seems to be downvoted, which may be unsurprising given the generic sentiment toward systemd in r/linux. Anyway, as of now I cannot load

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:32:27PM +, Laurent Bercot wrote: > Is there real pressure to have this? AFAIK, the only pressure is from systemd fanboys. But this is indeed a biggest criticism from them; we would be able to save quite a lot of flamewars if the feature was simply there.

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

I also wonder if someone on this mailing list is interested in actually implementing a cgroup-based babysitter as is outlined in the post, perhaps packaged together with standalone workalikes of the cgroup chainloaders (`create-control-group' etc) from nosh? Is there real pressure to have this?

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 07:17:02PM +, Laurent Bercot wrote: > That is awesome, and you are doing very important work. Thanks :) > Could somebody volunteer to track down all the similar documents we have, > and make a list of links on a "meta" page? I also wonder if someone on this mailing

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 02:09:48AM +0100, Oliver Schad wrote: > OMG - how much work was that? Great! The post is mostly based on materials from the UP2020 document, but optimised for length and with information added here and there; the "Linux cgroups" and "Myths" parts are largely new materials.