Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD Plans For The Next Ten Years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by teresaejunior View Post
    No unusual hardware, I bought this laptop with a Debian based distro installed.
    Maybe you should try a clean install of Jessie. I've a server, which I recently upgraded from stable to testing, right after systemd became default and systemd works fine.
    Of course I didn't try to suspend and so on...

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by teresaejunior View Post
      That probably explains why most systemd haters come from Debian and Gentoo, and most lovers come from Arch, SUSE, and Fedora. systemd on Debian is an abomination:

      1. It tried to run fsck on my swap partition, and boot would take a long long time before fsck failed.
      2. Hibernation would randomly fail, and my scripts from /etc/pm where ignored.
      3. Shutdown was completely broken, I had to kill the machine.

      No unusual hardware, I bought this laptop with a Debian based distro installed.
      Meh classing people as systemd haters and lovers is BS. Most people just don't care enough to even voice an opinion imho. Only reason i prefer systemd over non systemd distros is that i use several different ones and frankly don't enjoy getting familiar with 3-4 different ways to handle basic stuff like starting/stopping daemons, setting time, or remembering which logfile things end up on this system ... I like to avoid doing boring stuff(especially if its boring stuff that takes a long time because you have to read manpages), or learning things that only really apply to a single system. Some people would say thats lazy, way i see it i just got more actually interesting things to do than other people. Only reason i avoid Ubuntu really, i agree with alot of the things they do, from version numbering relating to years and months(which makes so much sense its almost stupid) to focusing on a single DE per "edition" of their distribution(which kinda won't get released until it actually works). I just can't be arsed to learn a initsystem that only applies to a single distro(and its not just the init system, everything thats included in systemd has a different corrosponding tool in ubuntu ... yeah fun).

      I mean i run fedora on my Pi, arch on my desktop, opensuse on my laptop and put centos on my fathers desktop(with a promise things on it won't change anytime soon as he hates changes in the gui) and everything is managed the same on all three. You gotta appreciate that. And seriously, just thinking logically, how bad can systemd be if RedHat and SuSE chose it for their enterprise products? They get lots of flack, but when it comes down to it those are the systems that run on Aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines or things like the London Stock Exchange ... MAYBE if its good enough for those people the guys working on them and calling the shots are not total idiots ... right?

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by oleid View Post
        Maybe you should try a clean install of Jessie. I've a server, which I recently upgraded from stable to testing, right after systemd became default and systemd works fine.
        Of course I didn't try to suspend and so on...
        That was a clean install.

        Comment


        • #14
          [deleted]
          Last edited by teresaejunior; 08 November 2020, 09:47 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by teresaejunior View Post
            That probably explains why most systemd haters come from Debian and Gentoo, and most lovers come from Arch, SUSE, and Fedora. systemd on Debian is an abomination:

            1. It tried to run fsck on my swap partition, and boot would take a long long time before fsck failed.
            2. Hibernation would randomly fail, and my scripts from /etc/pm where ignored.
            3. Shutdown was completely broken, I had to kill the machine.

            No unusual hardware, I bought this laptop with a Debian based distro installed.
            When I moved my sid install to systemd, I didn't have any issues like that. Only issue was needing to tell it not to fail on boot if it couldn't mount non-critical filesystems. I think it was already on v215 by the time I moved though.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by SebastianB View Post
              Meh classing people as systemd haters and lovers is BS. Most people just don't care enough to even voice an opinion imho. Only reason i prefer systemd over non systemd distros is that i use several different ones and frankly don't enjoy getting familiar with 3-4 different ways to handle basic stuff like starting/stopping daemons, setting time, or remembering which logfile things end up on this system ... I like to avoid doing boring stuff
              ...

              I mean i run fedora on my Pi, arch on my desktop, opensuse on my laptop and put centos on my fathers desktop(with a promise things on it won't change anytime soon as he hates changes in the gui) and everything is managed the same on all three. You gotta appreciate that. And seriously, just thinking logically, how bad can systemd be if RedHat and SuSE chose it for their enterprise products? They get lots of flack, but when it comes down to it those are the systems that run on Aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines or things like the London Stock Exchange ... MAYBE if its good enough for those people the guys working on them and calling the shots are not total idiots ... right?
              I could not express that better. I also work with different distributions. Where I live, the few companies that use Linux in some of their systems usually go the RedHat/CentOS way. In the past that means to known very well where RH had their files, their tools, etc, but also my own system which have been between Gentoo, Debian, and Arch during the years.

              And if systemd is Enterprise ready, then a simple guy like me should have not problem at all in his personal system.

              Now if they decide on the placement of configuration files and service names. Like example: Apache2 is called apache2 in some distributions, Httpd in others, while Apache (with no number) in others.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by darkcoder View Post
                I could not express that better. I also work with different distributions. Where I live, the few companies that use Linux in some of their systems usually go the RedHat/CentOS way. In the past that means to known very well where RH had their files, their tools, etc, but also my own system which have been between Gentoo, Debian, and Arch during the years.

                And if systemd is Enterprise ready, then a simple guy like me should have not problem at all in his personal system.

                Now if they decide on the placement of configuration files and service names. Like example: Apache2 is called apache2 in some distributions, Httpd in others, while Apache (with no number) in others.
                One reason I'm really excited about the proposal of having a btrfs root, with read-only /etc

                Comment


                • #18
                  two pages and noone cried that freebsd forgot unix way ? wtf

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by somini View Post
                    About 0 people did that, but you wouldn't notice by the comment sections.
                    You are that deluded?

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                      two pages and noone cried that freebsd forgot unix way ? wtf
                      The title isn't clickbaity enough to draw those types into the thread I guess

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X