lee writes:
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org writes:
I think mainly that you don't need logrotate. journald takes care of it
automatically.
Well, with logrotate, you can have to logs mailed to you. Can journald
do that, too?
Couldn't tell you. I don't understand the man page well
On 9 July 2014 14:15, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote:
The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in
that things can still be started even when they are disabled.
Err. no. Before systemd, the equivalent of
On 07/10/14 16:03, Ian Malone wrote:
On 9 July 2014 14:15, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote:
The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in
that things can still be started even when they are disabled.
Err. no.
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, lee wrote:
That is irrelevant.
How?
Because disabled means disabled and not something like ondemand.
I don't know what you don't understand ---
disabled means disabled, i. e. cannot be started.
No.
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, lee wrote:
I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what
disabled means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they
declined.
Why should I make any further bug reports about systemd
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:23 PM, lee wrote:
Then they should do it again.
That is a Debian maintainers decision.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it again.
That doesn't mean that users shouldn't get to vote.
It just means voting
-Original Message-
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Tom Horsley
Sent: woensdag 9 juli 2014 18:24
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: why do we use systemd?
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:57:26 -0400
Rahul Sundaram
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote:
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org writes:
I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.
So far, I've seen
On 10.7.2014 13:30, Balint Szigeti wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote:
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org mailto:benf...@parts-unknown.org
writes:
I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Tom H wrote:
You might not need to use all of the systemd tools but its tools
aren't independent.
That is similar to how optional features are handled in many collections.
If you use
Everyone! Please read
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-July/451692.html
I am not kidding.
This morning, there are a dozen new messages all recycling around points
that have already been made hundreds of posts ago in this thread. Regardless
of the merit of these points, this
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:34 AM, lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, lee wrote:
I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what
disabled means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they
declined.
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 14:09 +0300, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote:
On 10.7.2014 13:30, Balint Szigeti wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote:
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org writes:
I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
1) Is systemd
On 10.07.2014 16:10, Balint Szigeti wrote:
It looks like, a small group of the community makes decisions
and the other people don't have choice. No alternatives :(
The alternative is that someone talks the same thing about you, in a parallel
universe. :)
poma
--
users mailing list
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:05:03 -0400
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Everyone! Please read
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-July/451692.html
I am not kidding.
This morning, there are a dozen new messages all recycling around
points that have already
On 9 Jul 2014 00:33, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not random Debian maintainers. This is the Debian technical
committee empowered with making such decisions. A GR (General resolution)
is the only way to override the tech committee and that requires some
Debian maintainer to
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org writes:
lee writes:
I don't mind this idea. Yet when I disable something, I expect it to be
disabled.
This is another terminology issue, which I think should be viewed
separately from the merits/demerits of systemd itself. And I'm
inclined to agree
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
This is not random Debian maintainers. This is the Debian technical
committee empowered with making such decisions. A GR (General resolution)
is the only way to override the tech committee and that requires some
Debian maintainer to propose one and
On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote:
When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is
camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise and
masking can all be used for*preventing* from being disabled.
No. When a service is disabled it can still be started
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote:
On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote:
When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is
camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise and
masking can all be used for*preventing* from being disabled.
lee writes:
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org writes:
Why should it be seen separately? Poorly chosen terms is a feature of
systemd like any other it may have, and this feature leads straightaway
to unexpected and undesired results when used. That the authors even
deny fixing it is ...
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:03 AM, lee wrote:
Apparently the project secretary has a hand in it, and sponsors are
needed. So maybe it's not as easy as it seems.
It is fairly easy to bring any proposal to vote. Debian has done it
numerous times.
Too bad that the users never get to
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org writes:
I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.
So far, I've seen only arguments that would support that systemd is a
Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us writes:
On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote:
When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is
camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise and
masking can all be used for*preventing* from being disabled.
No. When a service is
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 09:49 +1000, Norman Gaywood wrote:
On 7 July 2014 08:34, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 13:01 -0700, David Benfell wrote:
*What*, for example, is the usual meaning of file system objects?
A
file? Why not just say file? And if
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote:
The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in
that things can still be started even when they are disabled.
Err. no. Before systemd, the equivalent of mask simply didn't exist and
there was no systematic way to
On 7/9/2014 07:12, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
All major distributions at this point have switched to systemd or in
the process of doing so which should tell you the value of it.
With respect, just because there is consensus among governing entities
doesn't necessarily mean that the decision is
Allegedly, on or about 08 July 2014, David Benfell sent:
This is another terminology issue, which I think should be viewed
separately from the merits/demerits of systemd itself. And I'm
inclined to agree that the terms are poorly chosen.
If it'd been my choice, disabled would have meant
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Tom Rivers wrote:
With respect, just because there is consensus among governing entities
doesn't necessarily mean that the decision is good for everyone. Consensus
!= Fact. History is replete with examples.
Sure but if you want to go against the
On 09/07/14 05:35 AM, users-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 7 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:36:37 -0700 From: Joe Zeff
On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote:
When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is
camouflaged or concealed. Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise
On 7/9/2014 09:57, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Sure but if you want to go against the consensus, you will have to do
something more concrete.
That is precisely why I challenged your assertion that the value of
systemd was because everyone was adopting it. The reason you gave for
dismissing all of
On 07/09/2014 05:51 PM, R. G. Newbury wrote:
On 09/07/14 05:35 AM, users-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 7 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:36:37 -0700 From: Joe Zeff
On 07/08/2014 11:40 PM, lee wrote:
When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled. It is
camouflaged or
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Tom Rivers wrote:
On 7/9/2014 09:57, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Sure but if you want to go against the consensus, you will have to do
something more concrete.
That is precisely why I challenged your assertion that the value of
systemd was because everyone
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:57:26 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
if anyone is pushing for alternatives,
they should understand that systemd isn't just a init system
Which is, of course, the primary thing that is wrong with it :-).
Unix/linux grew successfully for years by dividing things into
small
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:57:26 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
if anyone is pushing for alternatives,
they should understand that systemd isn't just a init system
Which is, of course, the primary thing that is wrong with it :-).
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:43:57 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This isn't the case. systemd isn't monolithic. it is a collection of
tools with a shared codebase where most of the tools are optional.
Its a collection of tools, all of which talk to an ever increasing
monolithic systemd daemon which
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:43:57 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This isn't the case. systemd isn't monolithic. it is a collection of
tools with a shared codebase where most of the tools are optional.
Its a collection of tools, all
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
Systemd is now engulfing practically all of linux. A bug in one
piece can make dozens of other things fail, and it is so large
and complex that there *will* be bugs in
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Tom H wrote:
You might not need to use all of the systemd tools but its tools
aren't independent.
That is similar to how optional features are handled in many collections.
If you use some features, they might pull in other requirements but the
features
Please review https://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct (also linked in the
signature of every message on this list).
I think there may be some constructive messages in that thread, but there's
also a lot of trolling and quite a bit of back and forth rehashing the same
thing. This does not
Adrian Sevcenco adrian.sevce...@cern.ch writes:
These are completely unrelated terms. in services start language
enabled means start at boot and disabled do not start at boot ..
and that's all ..
If you want to see it this way, then systemd misunderstands things so
that disabled means to
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:03 AM, lee wrote:
Apparently the project secretary has a hand in it, and sponsors are
needed. So maybe it's not as easy as it seems.
It is fairly easy to bring any proposal to vote. Debian has done it
numerous
R. G. Newbury newb...@mandamus.org writes:
So 'masked' is actually NEVER NOT EVEN WHEN YOU WANT IT. and DISABLED
means SOMETIMES,
They confuse masked with disabled and disabled with ondemand and
deny to fix that.
This thread contains numerous instances of why systemd is not well
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee wrote:
The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in
that things can still be started even when they are disabled.
Err. no. Before systemd, the equivalent of mask simply didn't
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com writes:
If there are concrete criticisms, they should ideally be in the form
of bug reports to reach the developers directly.
I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what
disabled means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, lee wrote:
That is irrelevant.
How? The fact that dynamically started services can only directly be
controlled by systemd in a systematic manner is directly relevant. It
explains the real difference between disabled and mask.
I don't know what you
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:23 PM, lee wrote:
Then they should do it again.
That is a Debian maintainers decision.
That doesn't mean that users shouldn't get to vote.
It just means voting isn't how distribution choose system components.
Switching to something
because there is no
Hi
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, lee wrote:
I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what
disabled means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they
declined.
Why should I make any further bug reports about systemd when they don't
want to even fix important
On Jul 9, 2014, at 8:20 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
would suggest that the misunderstanding is on your part instead as noted in
another reply. However even if it weren't true, we all get bug reports
closed from time to time with a resolution different from what we want.
OK that's it!
I sincerely recommend the moderators to close this shameful thread where
certain creatures are capable of spitting on the systemd and its developers
without any remorse!
poma
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
Poma said:
OK that's it!
I sincerely recommend the moderators to close this shameful thread where
certain creatures are capable of spitting on the systemd and its
developers without any remorse!
I think Greg had the right idea. *plonk*.
To be frank, as I mentioned on another thread on another
On 08.07.2014 08:28, Russell Miller wrote:
I think Greg had the right idea. *plonk*.
Mister plonk-man, this has nothing to do with Greg!
Uber hilarious!
poma
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org writes:
https://wiki.debian.org/systemd
systemd was included in Debian wheezy as a technology preview
However, it appears that even though they have taken their vote, and
chosen systemd, they have not yet developed service files for all
their
Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us writes:
In systemd, a service that's disabled won't be directly started at
boot, but another service can still start it either at boot or later.
That means that the service is *not* disabled.
To keep a service from being started by systemd under any
circumstances, you
lee writes:
And only seven votes? Are they serious?
I didn't realize they'd only gotten seven votes (presumably of the
maintainers who advocate systemd). I do understand that quorum rules need
to be loose enough to allow anything at all to get done.
But this seems *too* loose.
--
lee writes:
I don't mind this idea. Yet when I disable something, I expect it to be
disabled.
This is another terminology issue, which I think should be viewed
separately from the merits/demerits of systemd itself. And I'm inclined to
agree that the terms are poorly chosen.
I guess the
David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org writes:
lee writes:
And only seven votes? Are they serious?
I didn't realize they'd only gotten seven votes (presumably of the
maintainers who advocate systemd). I do understand that quorum rules
need to be loose enough to allow anything at all to
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Garry T. Williams wrote:
On 7-5-14 14:30:39 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
+1. One of my pet gripes about systemd is that it introduces a lot of
new terminology without a clear explanation.
Have you looked at the manual pages? I know of no other project that
Hi
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:07 PM, David Benfell wrote:
lee writes:
And only seven votes? Are they serious?
I didn't realize they'd only gotten seven votes (presumably of the
maintainers who advocate systemd). I do understand that quorum rules need
to be loose enough to allow anything
On 7 July 2014 08:34, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 13:01 -0700, David Benfell wrote:
*What*, for example, is the usual meaning of file system objects?
A
file? Why not just say file? And if the documentation really means
files
or pipes or devices,
Hi
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Norman Gaywood wrote:
What about a file without a name? :-)
If you delete all filenames of a file while it is opened by a process,
it still uses filesystem space but has no name.
There are other cases as well
On 08.07.2014 01:16, poma wrote:
On 08.07.2014 01:15, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:08:48AM +0200, poma wrote:
On 08.07.2014 00:53, David Benfell wrote:
poma writes:
What is the sediment in the thread context?
I suspect the word that was meant here is 'sentiment'.
Yeah it
Garry T. Williams wrote:
There are a slew of references on the 'Net
Then give one ...
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription
On 07/06/2014 07:45 PM, lee wrote:
Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us writes:
On 07/06/2014 12:43 AM, lee wrote:
Not even the configuration files are where they belong.
Actually, they're exactly where they belong. They just aren't where
you expect them to be.
They belong under /etc, not hidden
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:38:16AM +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Garry T. Williams wrote:
There are a slew of references on the 'Net
Then give one ...
Or if you could share your slides from the talk you gave, that would be
nice. I sincerely would like to understand systemd, and so far all
Adrian Sevcenco writes:
moreover you can separately configure a service without modifying the
.service file (which usually is linked in /etc/systemd) :
Possibly my information is out of date. I thought you were to put such
service files in /etc/systemd/system and systemctl looks here first
Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 13:01 -0700, David Benfell wrote:
*What*, for example, is the usual meaning of file system objects?
A
file? Why not just say file? And if the documentation really means
files
or pipes or devices, then why not say
Glenn Holmer shad...@lyonlabs.org writes:
But when someone replies to that by saying that systemd is broken
because a shepherd is not a sheep, well... that's just splitting
grammatical hairs to try and prove that the documentation is obtuse.
Then you haven't thought far enough. The
Russell Miller duskg...@gmail.com writes:
On Jul 6, 2014, at 5:33 PM, David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org wrote:
Rolf Turner writes:
The difference is that Olav is polite and you are abusive.
If you regard what I say as abusive, then you should, perhaps, be
challenging this entire
Sam Varshavchik mr...@courier-mta.com writes:
David Benfell writes:
Systemd needs to be a vast improvement to justify this. And it seems
that not everyone even agrees that it's an improvement at all.
Here's something that I can't figure out: with this entire thread in
mind, why is all of
Bill Oliver ven...@billoblog.com writes:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2014, David Benfell wrote:
So in your view, I have no right to object to his behavior but you have a
right to object to my objection?
Something ain't right there.
Some things are above criticism. It's important that you know your
Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com writes:
On 06/07/14 18:44, lee wrote:
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com writes:
[...]
yum remove alsa-plugins-pulseaudio
used to do it. It would still be installed, but not loaded/used.
Hm, yes, I could actually remove it without removing anything else,
Michael Hennebry henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu writes:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2014, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
What systemd config files are under /var?
I don't know. I thought lee did.
It has some files in /var, too, whatever those are. It's all over the
place :(
--
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
--
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com writes:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:25:42 -0500 (CDT)
Michael Hennebry henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2014, lee wrote:
Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us writes:
On 07/06/2014 12:43 AM, lee wrote:
Not even the configuration files are where they belong.
Garry T. Williams gtwilli...@gmail.com writes:
On 7-6-14 10:39:11 lee wrote:
Garry T. Williams gtwilli...@gmail.com writes:
The analogy is placing a script in /etc/init.d and then linking
its name in the /etc/rc5.d directory.
I find this much simpler than the sysvinit schemes.
You
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 11:07 +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:38:16AM +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Garry T. Williams wrote:
There are a slew of references on the 'Net
Then give one ...
Or if you could share your slides from the talk you gave, that would be
nice.
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 04:57 +0200, poma wrote:
On 06.07.2014 22:12, David Benfell wrote:
poma writes:
You can propose your terminology.
You're asking him to do Poettering's technical writing when he isn't even
sure he understands Poettering correctly.
Not only is that an
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 04:39 +0200, poma wrote:
On 06.07.2014 16:45, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 15:32 +0200, poma wrote:
I repeat that I am not attacking systemd here, I'm criticizing the
way
it's described. It may seem perfectly clear to those who already
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:16:52 +0100
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Writing
clear documentation is just as hard as writing good code.
I disagree, it is actually much harder :-).
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:27:53 +0200
lee wrote:
Debian and centos use sysvinit; I don't know what others use.
Not for long.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of
On 07/07/2014 04:34 AM, lee wrote:
The authors of systemd don't even understand what disabled means.
A pretty bold statement. Disabled means the same thing it does in
sysvinit: the service won't start at boot time.
On 07.07.2014 13:19, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 04:39 +0200, poma wrote:
On 06.07.2014 16:45, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sun, 2014-07-06 at 15:32 +0200, poma wrote:
I repeat that I am not attacking systemd here, I'm criticizing the
way
it's described. It may seem
On 07/07/2014 01:10 PM, David Benfell wrote:
Adrian Sevcenco writes:
moreover you can separately configure a service without modifying the
.service file (which usually is linked in /etc/systemd) :
Possibly my information is out of date. I thought you were to put such
service files in
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 15:11 +0200, poma wrote:
You do not understand your own terminology!? :)
Yeah sure, that's what I meant. Not.
poc
You see, you expect systemd to be understandable, however you alone
weren't understandable here. :)
Seriously? The only person who appears to
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:17:49 +0100
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I see it all now. The people who complain that they don't understand the
terminology are lazy or ignorant or have an agenda. There's no way any
of the responsibility for that lies with the docs themselves. Why didn't
I realize that
On 06.07.2014, Balint Szigeti wrote:
The only reason that I wanted to reach, make the system(s) better if we
don't get rid of it.
But keep in mind that there are alternatives. Thus, systemd isn't
unavoidable. I'm permitting myself to mention that I've been
using openrc on my Arch machine
On 07/07/14 13:39, Heinz Diehl wrote:
But keep in mind that there are alternatives. Thus, systemd isn't
unavoidable. I'm permitting myself to mention that I've been
using openrc on my Arch machine quite some time, and it works great..
It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into
On 07.07.2014 20:38, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:17:49 +0100
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I see it all now. The people who complain that they don't understand the
terminology are lazy or ignorant or have an agenda. There's no way any
of the responsibility for that lies with the
On 07.07.2014, Edward M wrote:
It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into the mainline
kernel.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
This thread showcases once more the all-dominating and rude
attitudes of some of the systemd devs. At least, the
On 07/07/14 15:00, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 07.07.2014, Edward M wrote:
It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into the mainline
kernel.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
This thread showcases once more the all-dominating and rude
attitudes of
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 23:27 +0200, poma wrote:
For you Roquefort will always be just a fungus.
It's beyond your comprehension.
We're done here.
poc
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
On 08.07.2014 00:00, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 07.07.2014, Edward M wrote:
It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into the mainline
kernel.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
This thread showcases once more the all-dominating and rude
attitudes of
poma writes:
What is the sediment in the thread context?
I suspect the word that was meant here is 'sentiment'.
--
David Benfell
See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you do not understand the
attachment.
pgpGYgRS4st9h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
users mailing list
poma writes:
For you Roquefort will always be just a fungus.
It's beyond your comprehension.
Fascinating.
--
David Benfell
See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you do not understand the
attachment.
pgp7H0uW05rdV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
users mailing list
On 08.07.2014 00:46, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 23:27 +0200, poma wrote:
For you Roquefort will always be just a fungus.
It's beyond your comprehension.
We're done here.
poc
We!? :)
poma
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change
On 08.07.2014 00:57, David Benfell wrote:
poma writes:
For you Roquefort will always be just a fungus.
It's beyond your comprehension.
Fascinating.
Indeed.
Tom tends to call a fungus everything he does not like. :)
BTW you sound like Spock. :)
poma
--
users mailing list
On 08.07.2014 00:53, David Benfell wrote:
poma writes:
What is the sediment in the thread context?
I suspect the word that was meant here is 'sentiment'.
Yeah it comes to mind, but then what would be the sentiment in the thread
context?
poma
--
users mailing list
On 08.07.2014 01:11, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 12:50:08AM +0200, poma wrote:
On 08.07.2014 00:00, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 07.07.2014, Edward M wrote:
It may become problematic once KDBUS merges into the mainline
kernel.
On 08.07.2014 01:15, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:08:48AM +0200, poma wrote:
On 08.07.2014 00:53, David Benfell wrote:
poma writes:
What is the sediment in the thread context?
I suspect the word that was meant here is 'sentiment'.
Yeah it comes to mind, but then what would
And people tend to say systmed developers are rude. :)
s/systmed/systemd/
poma
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct:
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
