Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systemd Works On PPPoE Support

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    Allow me the mockery, but what does systemd have to do with UNIX philosophy?!? If anything does it mark the end of it. Anyhow, we are past the point-of-no-return...
    All systemd CLI tools are first class Linux/Unix tools that behave like any other Linux core tools; they do one thing well, can be piped, aren't chatty when successful etc. Sure, they are developed in coordination in the same repo, but that is the case for Unix-like OS's like BSD too, and the several core Linux program collections like the "util-linux" package that contains "mount" "mkfs" "renice" "login" etc.

    Regarding that the init systemd isn't primitive and crude like SysVinit; well, real certified UNIX(tm) systems like Solaris and OSX have long abandoned the SysVinit concept and are using systemd-like init systems like launchd and SMF (in fact, these where major inspiration points for systemd). So are you saying that real Unix systems aren't Unix?

    All in all, systemd is just status quo for Linux regarding Unix/Posix compliance; if the principle is sound and can solve real world problems, then fine, if not, dump it. The lessons learned from making Unix are guidelines, not holy scripture.

    Linux isn't Unix and will never be. It is a OS' on its own, and if Linus Torvalds has a mission statement for Linux, then it is that Linux should solve real world problems and never just be a show case for philosophical or technological dogmas. Linux is made for end users, not OS designers. This is why it is successful, unlike Plan 9 and Hurd that are riding their OS design hobby horses instead of caring for users.


    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    In the past would such mounts have happened in the background while the boot process continued in the foreground. This was done for disks with long spin-up times for example. If a mount could not complete was it forked into the background. This is what I though what systemd was all about - to make use of multi-processing and multi-threading for an increased parallelism already at boot time. So clearly does it not deliver on its promises, all while in the past this has already been solved with background mounts. The systemd developers still have some work to do.
    Booting a system while essential disks are missing is just a stupid idea that can lead to silent data loss and corruption. The "Rule of Repair" is just the right thing to apply to such critical disks. That SysVinit doesn't follow Unix philosophy in this regards is probably because it is so primitive and with no real design plan behind it.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by interested View Post
      All systemd CLI tools are first class Linux/Unix tools that behave like any other Linux core tools; they do one thing well, can be piped, aren't chatty when successful etc. Sure, they are developed in coordination in the same repo, but that is the case for Unix-like OS's like BSD too, and the several core Linux program collections like the "util-linux" package that contains "mount" "mkfs" "renice" "login" etc.

      Regarding that the init systemd isn't primitive and crude like SysVinit; well, real certified UNIX(tm) systems like Solaris and OSX have long abandoned the SysVinit concept and are using systemd-like init systems like launchd and SMF (in fact, these where major inspiration points for systemd). So are you saying that real Unix systems aren't Unix?

      All in all, systemd is just status quo for Linux regarding Unix/Posix compliance; if the principle is sound and can solve real world problems, then fine, if not, dump it. The lessons learned from making Unix are guidelines, not holy scripture.

      Linux isn't Unix and will never be. It is a OS' on its own, and if Linus Torvalds has a mission statement for Linux, then it is that Linux should solve real world problems and never just be a show case for philosophical or technological dogmas. Linux is made for end users, not OS designers. This is why it is successful, unlike Plan 9 and Hurd that are riding their OS design hobby horses instead of caring for users.




      Booting a system while essential disks are missing is just a stupid idea that can lead to silent data loss and corruption. The "Rule of Repair" is just the right thing to apply to such critical disks. That SysVinit doesn't follow Unix philosophy in this regards is probably because it is so primitive and with no real design plan behind it.
      short story
      systemd teh best, all else pure shit ?
      despite systemd not solving any real problems ?

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by gens View Post
        short story
        systemd teh best, all else pure shit ?
        despite systemd not solving any real problems ?
        Your ability to ignore any post to the contrary is outstanding. You've been doing it for the best part of a year, pretending to not hear anything that jeopardises your world view as a systemd victim.

        So there's only one thing left to say gens; you're still a moron.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post
          Your ability to ignore any post to the contrary is outstanding. You've been doing it for the best part of a year, pretending to not hear anything that jeopardises your world view as a systemd victim.

          So there's only one thing left to say gens; you're still a moron.
          i still have not found a post that explains how systemd brought anything new to linux
          most of them come down to "sysvinit is bad", ignoring a plethora of other init systems (and there are many)
          this one is no exception

          i did also find many systemd proponents come down to just insulting anybody that does not agree with them
          like you not telling me what systemd has brought to linux, but still insulting me for asking
          gens
          Senior Member
          Last edited by gens; 11 November 2014, 09:14 AM.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by gens View Post
            short story
            systemd teh best, all else pure shit ?
            despite systemd not solving any real problems ?
            No, that is not even remotely related to anything said in that post.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
              No, that is not even remotely related to anything said in that post.
              "Regarding that the init systemd isn't primitive and crude like SysVinit"
              "All in all, systemd is just status quo for Linux regarding Unix/Posix compliance; if the principle is sound and can solve real world problems, then fine, if not, dump it. "
              sysvinit bad, systemd good

              "Linux isn't Unix and will never be. It is a OS' on its own, and if Linus Torvalds has a mission statement for Linux, then it is that Linux should solve real world problems and never just be a show case for philosophical or technological dogmas. Linux is made for end users, not OS designers."
              despite this and the fact that UNIX was made to solve real world problems
              this quoted message is just saying "desktop users know better then system designers"

              "Booting a system while essential disks are missing is just a stupid idea that can lead to silent data loss and corruption. The "Rule of Repair" is just the right thing to apply to such critical disks. That SysVinit doesn't follow Unix philosophy in this regards is probably because it is so primitive and with no real design plan behind it. "
              this is just wrong (and sysvinit bad, systemd good)

              "Booting a system while essential disks are missing" is not even possible

              "That SysVinit doesn't follow Unix philosophy in this regards is probably because it is so primitive and with no real design plan behind it."
              there are years of real design planing behind using the shell for init
              the biggest reasons behind it are that it is easy to debug and easy to fix if something goes bonkers (and easy to extend to any use scenario)
              gens
              Senior Member
              Last edited by gens; 11 November 2014, 09:24 AM.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by gens View Post
                i still have not found a post that explains how systemd brought anything new to linux
                most of them come down to "sysvinit is bad", ignoring a plethora of other init systems (and there are many)
                this one is no exception

                i did also find many systemd proponents come down to just insulting anybody that does not agree with them
                like you not telling me what systemd has brought to linux, but still insulting me for asking
                Maybe you should start with the feature list. And then recall the literally dozens of posts people have made responding to this exact bullshit every time you've made it. Go look at your post history and read the followup.

                I think I'm justified in calling you out on this.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post
                  Maybe you should start with the feature list. And then recall the literally dozens of posts people have made responding to this exact bullshit every time you've made it. Go look at your post history and read the followup.

                  I think I'm justified in calling you out on this.
                  nobody responded to "this exact bullshit" as nobody can give an example of something that is not possible without systemd
                  edit: even easily done, without systemd

                  some have said "automatic, cgroups, resource limiting"; as did "interested" once (have to quote the nick)
                  and we had a long discussion about how cgroups work and how CFQ works (and how cgroups are actually easy)


                  so thx for another insult
                  have any more ?
                  gens
                  Senior Member
                  Last edited by gens; 11 November 2014, 09:32 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by gens View Post
                    nobody responded to "this exact bullshit" as nobody can give an example of something that is not possible without systemd
                    edit: even easily done, without systemd

                    some have said "automatic, cgroups, resource limiting"; as did "interested" once (have to quote the nick)
                    and we had a long discussion about how cgroups work and how CFQ works (and how cgroups are actually easy)


                    so thx for another insult
                    have any more ?
                    I suppose bringing these features together, making them easily accessible and configurable has no virtue what so ever in your mind. Never mind the reliability added through being able to test how the system will behave just by compiling and running a test suite. No, I suppose all of that is worthless against the almighty power of sysvinit scripts.

                    Just because you refuse to aknowledge the features, does not mean they go away, it just makes you look like a stuck in the mud idiot.

                    Also, just because something is possible without systemd does not mean it is practical to implement.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post
                      I suppose bringing these features together, making them easily accessible and configurable has no virtue what so ever in your mind. Never mind the reliability added through being able to test how the system will behave just by compiling and running a test suite. No, I suppose all of that is worthless against the almighty power of sysvinit scripts.

                      Just because you refuse to aknowledge the features, does not mean they go away, it just makes you look like a stuck in the mud idiot.

                      Also, just because something is possible without systemd does not mean it is practical to implement.
                      they are easily accessible and configurable
                      and if they weren't, it would be easy to make a tool that configures them

                      test suite ?
                      systemd devs have proven that they don't debug

                      and i said scripts are easy, but they are not the only other way to boot a system
                      upstart, openrc, s6, runit, etc.

                      and again you are insulting for no reason so i won't reply to anything else you say
                      have a nice day kid

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X