Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd-Free Debian Fork Devuan Releases Its Second Beta

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

  • #31
    if memory serves me correctly, OpenRC was the one which had feature-set similar to Systemd and yet is/was supposed to be smaller. Something like that would have added value, Going back to sysvinit doesn't make sense.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Passso View Post

      Believe it or not but you could have1600x1200 on every simple 15" in 90's! Then LCD monitors came and... ouch
      Not really. Simple 15" CRTs usually did not venture beyond 1280x1024 and then you got to deal with screen refresh rate that REALLY did hurt your eyes.
      Had Dell P1130 21" that could produce resolutions like [email protected] and lower resolutions(like 1600x1200) at up to 125Hz. I'm still sorta mourning it.

      Originally posted by shirish View Post
      if memory serves me correctly, OpenRC was the one which had feature-set similar to Systemd and yet is/was supposed to be smaller. Something like that would have added value, Going back to sysvinit doesn't make sense.
      Shush. OpenRC is taboo. "It does not exist".

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        Afaik, true systemd detractors (not whiny dumb trolls) have moved to serious systemd-less distros like Gentoo and Void Linux.

        There are some that claim they are on Gentoo but are actually trolling from Windows.
        Not systemdless on Gentoo - as I'm running it from quite a few installs - trolling from work on Windows however

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shirish View Post
          if memory serves me correctly, OpenRC was the one which had feature-set similar to Systemd and yet is/was supposed to be smaller. Something like that would have added value, Going back to sysvinit doesn't make sense.
          OpenRC was never supposed to have a feature set similar to systemd, it simply cannot as it is still a sysvinit derivative so by design it is still a relatively dumb init binary starting scripts where all the "smarts" are.

          OpenRC is similar to Upstart, (although it actually works as advertised, to the contrary of Upstart that was a trainwreck), and has nothing to do with systemd at all.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            OpenRC was never supposed to have a feature set similar to systemd, it simply cannot as it is still a sysvinit derivative so by design it is still a relatively dumb init binary starting scripts where all the "smarts" are.

            OpenRC is similar to Upstart, (although it actually works as advertised, to the contrary of Upstart that was a trainwreck), and has nothing to do with systemd at all.
            Of course it has NOTHING to do with systemd, it pre-dates systemd by a bunch of years. Only an idiot would claim the opposite.

            Systemd itself was never supposed to have feature set it now has. It was initially advertised as alternative init system, nothing else and nothing more.

            Can't see why you bring up sysvinit at all here, related to OpenRC. OpenRC does not have it's capital shortcomings. If you call shell scripts "dumb" it means you must lack the ability of employing them properly. They allow hell of a lot of extended functionality.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
              OpenRC was never supposed to have a feature set similar to systemd, it simply cannot as it is still a sysvinit derivative so by design it is still a relatively dumb init binary starting scripts where all the "smarts" are.

              OpenRC is similar to Upstart, (although it actually works as advertised, to the contrary of Upstart that was a trainwreck), and has nothing to do with systemd at all.
              And to this day you still haven't explained why for decades shell scripting on init was considered one of the very best features sysvinit provided. And then suddenly when the systemd fanboyism started it was a magically evil thing. Why?

              Why exactly do you think one of the most advanced and flexible features linux distributions provide is somehow "dumb"? If you think systemd's init scripting capabil;ities is on par with openrc you should think again and study that topic some before spouting made up bullshit that is essentially equal to a lie.

              EDIT: Also to those of you that think you're using systemd on Gentoo, think again. The real matter of fact is that systemd on Gentoo is a dirty hack -because- systemd isn't capable of init scripting that is fully compatible with sysvinit. So really what it is, is systemd starting openrc which runs init scripts. It was the only way to keep Gentoo's baselayout.
              Last edited by duby229; 06 December 2016, 09:07 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                Of course it has NOTHING to do with systemd, it pre-dates systemd by a bunch of years. Only an idiot would claim the opposite.
                Are you saying shirish is an idiot? Because it's him that claimed that.

                Systemd itself was never supposed to have feature set it now has. It was initially advertised as alternative init system, nothing else and nothing more.
                Bullshit, it was advertised as an init system that would concentrate all features of scripts into the init system itself, so everyone knew it would have many features as it was supposed to replace initscripts.

                Can't see why you bring up sysvinit at all here, related to OpenRC.
                Because OpenRC is a derivative of sysvinit
                OpenRC does not have it's capital shortcomings.
                Can it log stuff from early boot, isolate processes, log anything the daemon coughs on stdin and react to daemons crash/termination?

                If you call shell scripts "dumb"
                I called the init binary itself "dumb", please learn to read.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                  And to this day you still haven't explained why for decades shell scripting on init was considered one of the very best features sysvinit provided. And then suddenly when the systemd fanboyism started it was a magically evil thing. Why?
                  You've been answered so man y times and you still keep posting this bullshit. Nice trolling tho.

                  Why exactly do you think one of the most advanced and flexible features linux distributions provide is somehow "dumb"?
                  Another retard that can't tell the difference between "init" and "init scripts".
                  The older init is a dumb thing that is basically calling scripts in folders in alphabetic order, end of story. That is "dumb" because a pure sequential procedure cannot be called smart.

                  OpenRC is better than that the fundamental limitations of its design can't be avoided.

                  If you think systemd's init scripting capabil;ities is on par with openrc
                  No I don't think that. Nice strawmanning.

                  Systemd's unit files (configuration files) roflstomp anything you can hope to achieve with a script, as far as starting/stopping/tracking services is concerned.

                  systemd isn't capable of init scripting that is fully compatible with sysvinit.
                  Bullshit.

                  So really what it is, is systemd starting openrc which runs init scripts.
                  And this is the definitive proof that you just claim you are using Gentoo but are in fact trolling from Windows.
                  Next plz.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                    You've been answered so man y times and you still keep posting this bullshit. Nice trolling tho.

                    Another retard that can't tell the difference between "init" and "init scripts".
                    The older init is a dumb thing that is basically calling scripts in folders in alphabetic order, end of story. That is "dumb" because a pure sequential procedure cannot be called smart.

                    OpenRC is better than that the fundamental limitations of its design can't be avoided.

                    No I don't think that. Nice strawmanning.

                    Systemd's unit files (configuration files) roflstomp anything you can hope to achieve with a script, as far as starting/stopping/tracking services is concerned.

                    Bullshit.

                    And this is the definitive proof that you just claim you are using Gentoo but are in fact trolling from Windows.
                    Next plz.
                    A wtf do you think an inits job should be? I'll put it simply, it's -supposed- to be an interpreter. I guarantee you in every scenario I can script a solution, but systemd will only ever provide hardcoded bullshit and that only if it pleases the great LP.

                    If you're so hard set dead against interpreted scripting engines, then go the fuck back to Windows. You'd do well there, after all scripting engines don't belong there either.

                    EDIT: You want the gory details, then here the fuck you go. You asked for it after all.
                    http://www.gossamer-threads.com/list...oo/user/290995
                    https://www.turnkeylinux.org/blog/de...sv-init-compat
                    https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd#OpenRC_services
                    http://gentooexperimental.org/~patri...9T13_39_32.txt

                    I can keep going, there is a hell of a lot more. In all of these there are problems reported running init or shell scripts, -because- systemd is -not- fully compatible with sysvinit. At the very minimum it is seriously bugged, and even when Gentoo is configured to boot systemd, it still doesn't use it for interpreting scripts.
                    Last edited by duby229; 06 December 2016, 12:37 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      e
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      Are you saying shirish is an idiot? Because it's him that claimed that.
                      It depends on the sensitivity of the person. I meant it as general statement.
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      Bullshit, it was advertised as an init system that would concentrate all features of scripts into the init system itself, so everyone knew it would have many features as it was supposed to replace initscripts.
                      Exactly. It was advertised as an INIT system. Not something that would gradually take over or replace bunch of other functionalities way outside the normal scope of init system.
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      Because OpenRC is a derivative of sysvinit
                      And? Does it has any shortcomings familiar to you from sysvinit?
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      Can it log stuff from early boot, isolate processes, log anything the daemon coughs on stdin and react to daemons crash/termination?
                      Are you speaking of an init system or service manager or log daemon? Because I was talking about an init system.

                      Did you mean stderr not stdin?
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      I called the init binary itself "dumb", please learn to read.
                      Unless Artificial Intelligence is involved, systemd binaries are logically equally "dumb".

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X