Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dbus Broker 17 Released - No Longer Depends On Glib, Better Isolation With Systemd

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Candy View Post

    There is no need to be offensive. Maybe you step back for 10 minutes and chill your nuggetz...
    there is! i am tired of the same unqualified bullshit repeated again and agin by morons like you over nearly a decade based on nothing than opinions with no technical backing

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

      more bla, bla bla bla..
      ad-hominem much? however, unlike you, some of us are misinformed and uneducated. and we don't care.

      EDIT: btw, you can't demand respect. you have to earn it.
      Last edited by stefansaraev; 01-02-2019, 05:20 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Candy View Post

        ... or ...

        We have different use cases and address different solutions than you and your small company.

        There is no such thing as right or wrong. It's all about compatibility and trust. We need to trust a company for delivering compatible stuff. We don't pay a company for being told how to do things *differently than before*. We pay them because we rely on compatibility and trust. If this is not given anymore then your argument is right. We need to seek an alternative solution where we spent the money in compatibility and trust.

        At the end it's all about money.
        So exactly where are your problems then (systemd supports SysVinit scripts out of the box just fine)?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

          I understand what you said, above, but you haven´ t understood the main purpose of an Operating system ..
          The main Purpose of an OS is to Virtualize the Hardware, so that you can use software above it, simplifying your life... that is the main purpose..

          But "S"ystem"D", is not what you describe at the end...in that section, you describe the crap Windows his... and Linux have made strong name, not basing its principles in the crap Windows is..
          There are no Windows principles in systemd, that is just a slur used by trolls on slashdot & co to scare users that have no technical knowledge (especially when those idiots compare it with svchost, that one is a real laugh!).

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
            So exactly where are your problems then (systemd supports SysVinit scripts out of the box just fine)?
            We don't have any problems with systemd. hreindl quoted a reply of mine to another user where I agreed to him about the problems of having associates changing stuff. I further responded that we ran into issues with dnf, that - during that time - was developed by associates working for RH.

            I suggest following the exact reply that I gave, so the content can be understood better. hreindl responed to that reply of mine without properly reading the issues that I wanted to address to that respond that I gave to that other person. But don't worry. I ended up googling hreindl and found his twitter account. Looks like he's been having trouble with half of his audience there. So why should I bother replying further to him ?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Candy View Post
              We don't have any problems with systemd. hreindl quoted a reply of mine to another user where I agreed to him about the problems of having associates changing stuff. I further responded that we ran into issues with dnf, that - during that time - was developed by associates working for RH.
              CREEP AWAY - now you have no problems at all?
              so what is all your bullshit about?

              "Looks like he's been having trouble with half of his audience there. So why should I bother replying further to him"
              why don#t you shut up at all with your uneducated crap

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Candy View Post

                That's exactly the situation that *we* are facing with Red Hat (RHEL) systems atm. Fedora allowed associate developers (these young ones) to mess around with *what we call* the core heart of the distribution (yum). We ended up in big troubles for the past 3 years now. Somewhere in the middle we managed to get along with dnf. But this took us a long journey to get there. A lot of rewriting of code from our own infrastructure was necessary because nothing fit - dnf changed much. Now a new bigger regression has shown up and even slipped into a stable distribution like Fedora 28. Again our infrastructure is broken for weeks now. But at the end I can't blame the associate developers - who are paid by Red Hat. The true problem is their floor manager or project leader (in charge of dnf), that let all this nonsenese happen.

                A lot has changed within the past 2 decades that I've been using Linux. Some stuff for the better, some stuff for the worse.

                I clearly can not recommend any RHEL product anymore within a corporate environment - based on the development of Fedora. A new convervative approach is needed. Maybe Windows 2019 Server or Debian.
                I agree that RedHat Project Managers are the ones that we should blame, in first place.
                They were lacking the necessary skills to manage complex projects, with the responsibility like a Init System..

                They take young kids, and put them in places were they clearly don´t belong at least yet( to save in cost per developer ),
                They don´t understand the complexity "of one solution to fit them all".. also they don´t understand the workflow of unix systems, and the possibilities that OS could be used for a plethora of things..

                They look to them for such tasks, has if it were like "designing a Regular Application"( self contained, with no damage for the ecosystem), ...which is clearly pure incompetence, from the personnel above them to put them in charge of something like that..

                There are parts of the OS, that need evolutionary approach, not a revolutionary approach,
                Because there are tons of services that need to continue to run in different versions,archs, and so on.. a lot of critical services are updated with less frequency, we could be here a month discussing that, because its a ton of things..

                Some people managing this projects, seems to have no clue of what they are doing..
                To give an example,
                I know the exact prices to pay, for some critical services when they are down in some Countries, and a very known case, it costs 1 million €/ hour, of fines from the Government, if that services are down for an hour, this is an example in one of the countries I work with..

                Now imagine,
                A particular application that is massively deployed, and its the only one approved by that country, they work with SysVinit Systems of course...
                Does you think they will develop for SystemD?

                Of course NOT,
                The risk when that application is deployed could cost them 1 million/hour plus my company work( to solve the problem, when service is down )..
                There seems to be a lack of Responsibility or mature enough people, managing that type of projects..

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by hreindl View Post

                  your opinion, not more and not less

                  i run a whole comapny environment on Fedora for a whole decade
                  Firwall, NAT, VOIP, Database, Fileserver, Spamfilters, Webservers, DNS and what not else

                  that all was installed in 2018 with F9 and made every dist-upgrade *online* with a reboot just like after a random kernel/glibc update and never installed from scratch
                  So you have a uptime of about an year, and you thing that is good?
                  That says a lot about your comment to address the faced problems discussed..

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by hreindl View Post

                    CREEP AWAY - now you have no problems at all?
                    so what is all your bullshit about?

                    "Looks like he's been having trouble with half of his audience there. So why should I bother replying further to him"
                    why don#t you shut up at all with your uneducated crap
                    For what I see, you are the one been uneducated here...
                    The truth is that no one here has the Obligation to educate you( only your own fathers.. )

                    But some people born, grow up and continue behaving like just pure animals..
                    Remember,
                    We born just animals, our fathers have the responsibility to turn us, in Human beans, but even in the lack of them, any adult person should use the brain and understand when he his doing things outside limit.. and try to correct himself, to a more human way..

                    you are in overflow mode..

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by hreindl View Post

                      your only problem is that nobody asked you in detail - it was implicit agreed by all and for guys like you a own distribution was created, shut up and help there to keep it alive because otherwise it will be gone soon
                      No it was NOT implicit Agreed by all...
                      What is that of implicit agreed?


                      Are yo joking?
                      It was forced down on us, with some RedHat Trojan Horses in Debian voting in favor...
                      But they don´t represent the majority of Debian code base, not even close.

                      I would like you to answer.. what is implicit agreed?
                      Because the lack of an agreement doesn´t mean it was implicit agreed... on the contrary!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X