Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Group Calls For Boycotting Systemd

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

  • Originally posted by sdack View Post
    It is like I said. Its meaning has been watered down over the years. Linux does not make too much sense here when you think about it. It uses four directories /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, and its explanation distinguishes between root and regular users as well as size, but a regular user cannot actually log in before the system has mounted all partitions nor should they be running anything during that time. So there is no need for four directories but only two. The four directories do come from a time when dynamic linking was introduced in UNIX. The LSB does not actually conflict with the original meaning, but only states the most basic expectation of what is to be found there. You could keep your porn collection in /sbin and it would not conflict with the LSB as long as you also keep the binaries in there, too.

    And this is not even a joke. I actually know of admins who used their privileges and hid porn pics in dot-directories on the root partition of their workstation.
    Ever use single user mode? /bin and /sbin hold all the mission critical goop. That way, when /usr and /var are trashed, you boot into single user mode (no login required) and can repair them with all the tools in /bin and /sbin. It makes total sense to have a standalone root partition that is seldom written to (even read-only) that is resistant to corruption. There's your perfectly reasonable answer for 4 directories.

    I should also mention that single user mode allows you to use the system prior to mounting any file system (with / mounted read-only), with no login and theoretically no restriction on what you can run as a user (just a single console though). It's also very handy when you forget root's password and have physical access to the machine.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by kringel View Post
      What I want to say: What about the eco system of Linux? It's not good for it when a few people can dictate their "visions". An Poettering is talking about his visions actually quite often. In his latest blog posts for example. And too many people are forced (because of Red Hat) to follow his visions.
      So where are the competing visions - and more importantly, the people doing the work to support those competing visions?

      Because that's how the system works - you don't change the world by complaining about stuff on the internet. You change the world by sitting down and doing work, then convincing others that what you've done is worthy of their attention. That's how we got Linux from a pet project by Linus Torvalds. That's how we got the Web from Tim Berners-Lee. And it's how we got pretty much every piece of software on Linux - someone sat down and wrote code to solve a problem, and convinced others to use it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by nslay View Post
        Ever use single user mode? /bin and /sbin hold all the mission critical goop. That way, when /usr and /var are trashed, you boot into single user mode (no login required) and can repair them with all the tools in /bin and /sbin. It makes total sense to have a standalone root partition that is seldom written to (even read-only) that is resistant to corruption. There's your perfectly reasonable answer for 4 directories.
        If somewhat obsolete. If I ever needed to recover a trashed /usr and /var (and I never have), I'd just boot off a flash drive, and use that - a fully functional desktop with access to the internet if I need it, instead of the bare minimum set of commands that someone thought would be adequate for carrying out repairs.

        Comment


        • I'm not sure if you actually read a thing i wrote

          Originally posted by Paul Frederick View Post
          What exactly is so awful about the present init system that it needs to be replaced? Is your system not booting up now? My i3 with a mechanical hard drive boots up in 5 seconds running a regular init. Do you really think that I need it to boot up faster than that? Because I'm here now to tell you that I do not. I also do not need an init that is more than 10 times as complex as the one I am currently using either.

          You seem to want to praise people who are willing to make an effort to lead everyone else down a garden path. Yet in the same breath you condemn us when we make an effort to resist a move into suspect territory. For you to have any credibility you are going to have to actually come up with some valid reasons for us to abandon what we already have.

          No, people just doing shit isn't a valid reason either. What kind of a lemming are you?
          I'm going to preface all this simply with you need to actually read a post before you attempt to respond to it, not a single thing you said had anything to do with my post.

          First I never stated the current init system was bad but if you'd like reasons please see wikipedia's init article Here it is clear that not only is sysv overly complex to deploy but is dificult for software developers to develop for and improve becase the whole thing is just a mishmash of scripts that vary wildly not only distribution to distribution but also system to system (for example dont bother trying to slap freeBSD's sysv implementation onto your slackware system you'll end up changing it to the point where it may be similar in intended functionality but has few similarities atomically Note: see wikipedia link for further info on this).

          Second If you read my post you will notice nowhere did I praise the systemd developers. In fact I disprove of the callous nature in which lennart has acted. as a developer more is expected of you when dealing with criticism from others no matter there skill level they, or you may be.

          Finally, I never told you to do anything other than not to stand around whining and complaining if your not willing to help yourself. 2 library's have changed simply fork and maintain yourself if you wish to still use another init system. the people that were maintaining it have said they aren't supporting you because they beleive they found a superior solution, and whether you like it or not they dont have to support you if they chose not to (which they have) so help yourself for once instead of screaming to the heavens about how unfair it all is. you, much like this boycotting movement will change nothing unless you do so. I dont have to give you a reason to abandon your init system, use it if you want but no one is stopping what there doing just because some people that do not contribute in any way to there project tell them too. It sounds stupid just saying it out loud.

          Note: thanks for that last lemming jab, I had a good chuckle.

          Comment


          • Boycott systemd.

            Because it's way easier to code a webpage than to code a sane systemd replacement.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by WizardGed View Post
              (for example dont bother trying to slap freeBSD's sysv implementation onto your slackware system you'll end up changing it to the point where it may be similar in intended functionality but has few similarities atomically Note: see wikipedia link for further info on this).
              FreeBSD doesn't uses SysV init, and they have no concept of run levels. All of the BSDs use BSD Init which is miles ahead of SysV, which is interestingly similar in style from the user facing side to systemd init.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                If somewhat obsolete. If I ever needed to recover a trashed /usr and /var (and I never have), I'd just boot off a flash drive, and use that - a fully functional desktop with access to the internet if I need it, instead of the bare minimum set of commands that someone thought would be adequate for carrying out repairs.
                And tell me, what would you do with your desktop environment? Open a terminal and run the same commands you would in single user mode? Spare me. There's nothing obsolete about single user mode, just ignorance about its existence and use.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by nslay View Post
                  Ever use single user mode? ...
                  Yes, I have been using single-user mode on UNIX machines before there was Linux. How about you?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                    If somewhat obsolete. If I ever needed to recover a trashed /usr and /var (and I never have), I'd just boot off a flash drive, and use that - a fully functional desktop with access to the internet if I need it, instead of the bare minimum set of commands that someone thought would be adequate for carrying out repairs.
                    Your approach requires a second partition or a second drive just the same. So you are doing it the way it has been done for decades under UNIX/Linux. Now imagine you had to administrate hundreds of machines within a team. Eventually you will want to have a solution with every machine and not just search for the right flash drive with the right software first. It is then easier to use a small partition or a small disk inside the machine for this purpose. It allows to do administrative tasks from remote, possibly automate them and avoid having to walk through every floor of your company and to go from room to room to do your job locally at every machine each single time.

                    UNIX contains a lot of experience, but it is understandable that it is not always needed for someone who just wants to use it all alone at home and just on a single machine. In fact you do not even need a multi-user OS for a lot of cases. Still, I do not think one should abandon these concepts all together only so that a some people can turn their computers into a gaming console. I think it is better to have an OS that allows for a very wide range of use cases and so that all the people who are using it can profit from the experience of one another. Throwing away such concepts for the sake of gaining a couple of seconds in boot time may turn out as unwise, especially when it could have been implemented side by side, but this is also the reason why young people are doing it - to learn about the consequences. The young rebelling against the old is a concept as old as the stars and allows everyone to come out the wiser.
                    Last edited by sdack; 04 September 2014, 02:15 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by nslay View Post
                      Ever use single user mode? /bin and /sbin hold all the mission critical goop. That way, when /usr and /var are trashed, you boot into single user mode (no login required) and can repair them with all the tools in /bin and /sbin. It makes total sense to have a standalone root partition that is seldom written to (even read-only) that is resistant to corruption. There's your perfectly reasonable answer for 4 directories.

                      I should also mention that single user mode allows you to use the system prior to mounting any file system (with / mounted read-only), with no login and theoretically no restriction on what you can run as a user (just a single console though). It's also very handy when you forget root's password and have physical access to the machine.
                      Well, with the exception of certain distros like Fedora that went through /usr merge so /bin now is /usr/bin instead of you having symlinks on executables like most have/had

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X