Originally posted by NotMine999
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux Mint 21 Is Going To Avoid systemd-oomd
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 3
-
Originally posted by Mahboi View PostTo be quite honest I think Canonical has good reasons to smash some of that extremely aging legacy stuff. 64 bit was the standard over 10 years ago.
If anything, Valve and Canonical have forced the advancement of many Linux elements moreso than any distro.- GNOME? Oh wait, that was Red Hat.
- The init (+ a bunch of other stuff) system they made systemd? That's Red Hat too.
- Wayland? Red Hat.
- Pipewire? Red Hat again.
- Polkit? Red Hat.
- [...]
Originally posted by Mahboi View PostAlso will Steam actually leave its 32 bit husk someday or are we stuck with this thing forever? I know a fully native app with a marketplace connection, tons of features, friends list etc. is huge, and I imagine remaking it is a massive pain, but this is some 2003 or so software now. Surely there must be a solid dozen reasons to remake it with more modern stuff. What would a Qt5 based Steam be like?
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotMine999 View Post
I think the distros are the problem.
In the early days of Linux the distros made a reasonable effort to follow common standards on filesystem layouts (and long before SystemDeath came along), then scripts from the original developer seemed to need few changes and SysVInit worked just fine.
Then a number of different distros decided to go off into separate "camps" on their filesystem layouts (generally following their upstream primary distro designs) with each "camp" doing something different. That schism caused trouble for many original developer scripts and many of those developers moved over to using SystemDeath features because SystemDeath was common to most of those distros; it reduced the "distro customization & support hassle".
I personally cannot remember how many scripts I had to edit in fleet-wide migrations from Redhat to Arch, then Arch to Gentoo, and finally Gentoo to Debian. Each of those distros had their own ideas on where certain files were stored, and these were mostly config files for the apps that might have file location pointers stored within them.
SystemDeath makes sense on the desktop where lots of different stuff has to start, much of it dependent upon other stuff, and all of that stuff needs to "fly in formation together" for the desktop world to work.
On a server where I do not have a GUI (CLI or WebUI only), the "linearity" of the SysVInit design (using Devuan) works fine for my uses. Besides, who uses a GUI on their servers? Linux converts that were formerly Apple & Windows users, that's who, and it's because that is how they were taught; been there and unlearned all of that.
But yes, systemd enforced more or less the same layout on everyone subscribed.
On your experience of distro hopping: that was hard, but you had the reason to switch distro, didn't you?
2) Systemd on desktop: it is unnecessary on the desktop. MX Linux with sysvinit works just fine. As for boot times, it manages to compare to that of systemd distros. Also, systemd has a number of features (e.g. container management) which makes more sense on servers.
3) You still want to switch sysvinit to something more modern: supervision suites can restart your daemons if they crash, thus improving your server's fault tolerance. Also they offer another features, such as better and more reliable log management. You can get the good of systemd without the bad. I'm talking of daemontools-family suites, like daemontools itself, runit and primarily s6.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ermine View Post1) I wouldn't call sysvinit broken. I think 'outdated' is more suitable here. Anyway, sysvinit is apparently fine for end users, but it is a PITA for distro maintainers.
In the early days of Linux the distros made a reasonable effort to follow common standards on filesystem layouts (and long before SystemDeath came along), then scripts from the original developer seemed to need few changes and SysVInit worked just fine.
Then a number of different distros decided to go off into separate "camps" on their filesystem layouts (generally following their upstream primary distro designs) with each "camp" doing something different. That schism caused trouble for many original developer scripts and many of those developers moved over to using SystemDeath features because SystemDeath was common to most of those distros; it reduced the "distro customization & support hassle".
I personally cannot remember how many scripts I had to edit in fleet-wide migrations from Redhat to Arch, then Arch to Gentoo, and finally Gentoo to Debian. Each of those distros had their own ideas on where certain files were stored, and these were mostly config files for the apps that might have file location pointers stored within them.
SystemDeath makes sense on the desktop where lots of different stuff has to start, much of it dependent upon other stuff, and all of that stuff needs to "fly in formation together" for the desktop world to work.
On a server where I do not have a GUI (CLI or WebUI only), the "linearity" of the SysVInit design (using Devuan) works fine for my uses. Besides, who uses a GUI on their servers? Linux converts that were formerly Apple & Windows users, that's who, and it's because that is how they were taught; been there and unlearned all of that.
Leave a comment:
-
This news means the Linux Mint maintainers don't test software, and rely on old documentation, IMHO.
I suffered from these issues with systemd-oomd when I installed Ubuntu 22.04. It killed programs way too early. The actual bug was because it counted memory used as cache as being in use, when it should be considered, for memory pressure issues, as free.
This was fixed in Mon, 4 Apr by Debian maintainers, so it was available to all Debian based distros:
And it was published by Canonical in version systemd-oomd_249.11-0ubuntu3.3_amd64
After this version was installed about a month ago, OOMD worked as intended and it has not been a problem since.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pabi View Post
That's true, but the upstream is still important, such as when an app offers its package for multiple Ubuntu versions or you are searching the internet for a guide on how to do something, because Mint is still effectively Ubuntu and this stuff will apply to it as well in 99 % of cases.
So you still need to remember the Ubuntu version underneath or calculate it somehow (i.e. remembering the 20-20 match or something). It would be nicer to be able to tell the Ubuntu version right away instead, even though it's not a major inconvenience.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mahboi View PostUbuntu does it right with the YY:MM method. It's sweet, easy to read and once you learn that LTS is every april of an even year, you know all you need from 4 numbers.
Honestly I wish more software and OSes would switch to a date-based model for versioning.
1. Calling it a VERSION is not very accurate
2. People think that just because something is a couple of years old means it is off less quality than newer software.
3. Semantic versioning gives you a much better idea what the developers did. Did they rewrite the entire thing possibly breaking compatibility? Did they revise a particular version with new features or major fixes? Or did they patch a minor bug?.... Try to understand that from a date based "versioning" scheme.
4. Date can be added to semantic versioning as well (and it should), just not part of the main version.revision.patch number.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by stormcrow View Post
Valve has had more than enough time to figure out what to do and implement it as far as Steam 32bit => 64bit is concerned. Instead they sit on their ass barely doing much of anything significant with the platform. We know they can move when they're made to: ex. Apple forced the issue with dropping legacy 32 bit years ago. Otherwise they sit on their ass raking in money they no longer deserve on software with flaws and vulnerabilities that have never been fixed unless they directly affect their income. Valve was once a great developer house. Alex suggests they can still do it, but frankly, they're a shadow of what they used to be. Too big, too greedy, too sure of themselves. You'd think a company that so loves Linux would fix the glaring problems with Steam on Linux, starting with the stupidly wrong permissions it grants every game installed. Don't believe me, look at the file permissions on any given game installed by Steam. You'll find most if not all installed as "777".
- Likes 9
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: