Devuan Jessie 1.0 Officially Released (softpedia.com) 237
prisoninmate quotes a report from Softpedia: Announced for the first time back in November 2014, Devuan is a Debian fork that doesn't use systemd as init system. It took more than two and a half years for it to reach 1.0 milestone, but the wait is now over and Devuan 1.0.0 stable release is here. Based on the packages and software repositories of the Debian GNU/Linux 8 "Jessie" operating system, Devuan 1.0.0 "Jessie" is now considered the first stable version of the GNU/Linux distribution, which stays true to its vision of developing a free Debian OS without systemd. This release is recommended for production use. As Devuan 1.0.0 doesn't ship with systemd, several adjustments needed to be made. For example, the distro uses a systemd-free version of the NetworkManager network connection manager and includes several extra libsystemd0-free packages in its repository.
Frostyd (Score:3, Funny)
So, how do I install systemd on this?
kudos to Devuan (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand AIX and its binary logs. However the entire point of Linux was that it was never UNIX. I'm waiting for all the systemd config files to get condensed into a flat database. It will be called system.dat and need a program called "regedit" to make any changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the OP says, we're talking about a system that has always had a certain number of (painful) binary logs. I'm not necessarily blessing that behavior, and I think the default in systemd should be to write both (is disk space really at such a premium these days you can't write a nice indexed searchable binary log and the text equivalent?), but complaints that it's just not the Unix/GNU+Linux way are, frankly, historically completely inaccurate.
That is already the default.everywhere I've used Systemd.
Get AWS Support or be marginalized (Score:4)
If Devuan was offered as a default AWS AMI, I would prefer to use it over Debian.
CoC? Diversity? (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but let's see how inclusive their Code of Conduct is, and what their project diversity stats look like, before we decide to take them seriously.
I hate systemd but there's no way I'm running any software dominated by a bunch of privileged white men.
systemd recursively obliterates parent dirs, root, (Score:5, Informative)
and OS instead of children: R! /path/to/remove/.*
https://github.com/systemd/sys... [github.com]
Pottering's Response:
I am not sure I'd consider this much of a problem. Yeah, it's a UNIX pitfall, but "rm -rf /foo/.*" will work the exact same way, no?
Unrelated, I also found sound worked much easier in FreeBSD than it did in Linux with pulseaudio. I wonder who designed that trash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder who designed that trash.
Someone who wanted an audio subsystem capable of meeting the user requirements of people in the 2000s instead of people in the 80s. It's quite telling that every distribution adopted it despite your assertion that it's "trash".
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who wanted an audio subsystem capable of meeting the user requirements of people in the 2000s instead of people in the 80s. It's quite telling that every distribution adopted it despite your assertion that it's "trash".
why not.. like.. umm.. late 90's? you know, when it it just worked.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
OSS in the 90s supported mixing multiple sound sources into a single audio output stream ... on systems other than Linux. Linux imported a crap version of OSS, never improved it, and declared OSS as dead and outdated ... when other OSes were using it just fine.
FreeBSD still defaults to OSS and supports pretty much all the same non-networked features as pulse.
OpenBSD has a sndio setup that supports pretty much all the same non-networks features as pulse, also running on top of OSS. sndio is also supported
Re: (Score:2)
why not.. like.. umm.. late 90's? you know, when it it just worked.
I'm going to add my 2c here - sound on Linux in the late 90s didn't just work, it was a PITA. Maybe you were better than me at figuring it out (wouldn't be hard) or you got lucky, but I used lots of distros back then and sound was always a sticking point.
Re: (Score:2)
why not.. like.. umm.. late 90's? you know, when it it just worked
I can see you first used Linux in 2005. Certainly didn't use it in the 90s if you thought it "just worked". Hell the forget "just". Often it didn't work with a huge amount of effort and hacks.
Say what you want about pulseaudio, it was required to make Linux a possible desktop operating system capable of any kind of multi-media.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a reason OSX and Windows don't spam my network with audio data? I forget which distro/version but PulseAudio had multicast on by default.
every distribution
And FreeBSD didn't yet in 2017 my audio works. It shows up as a simple device in /dev. It behaves like any other device. Doesn't spam my network with audio chatter.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't know how to change a setting and you're complaining. *golfclap*.
You also know what FreeBSD did in the late 90s and early 2000s? Oh man you're not going to believe this when I tell you. You ready for it? Really? : They abandoned the god fucking awful Linux OSS / ALSA combination and rewrote it from scratch.
Linux audio was for want of a more technical term: fucked. With pulse audio it now works, despite your weird network / RTFM problem. Not that this is a pulseaudio issue. It's not Pulseaudio's
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't know how to change a setting and you're complaining. *golfclap*
I spent a week trying to diagnose *why* my machine was so chatty before narrowing it down to PA. Then turning it off took no time. But having a default setting like that makes no sense.
rewrote it from scratch.
No one is claiming that it didn't need re-written. Just like I'm not claiming the old init method couldn't be improved. I take issue with what it was rewritten into. Which is the flaming pile of PulseAudio and SystemD.
launchd has been out for 12 years now. Ported to FreeBSD and running as NextBSD's init. I have yet to hear of
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem, but isn't it the same argument we hear about systemd: if all distros use it, so it must be good?
I didn't say it was good. I said it wasn't trash, implying it had a purpose. But yes that is the same arguement. All three base distros went through a technical evaluation (except maybe RedHat which probably assumes everything Lennart touches is pure gold), and they all adopted it on technical merits. That is documented in mailing lists regardless of what people think.
Things that worked for decades
Are we still talking about sound? Tell me you're not talking about sound. Because if you're talking about sound you deserve a +5 funny for th
Re: (Score:2)
I tried and used systemd before any distribution adopted it.
Great. Your views are outdated. There have been hundreds of commits and bug fixes not to mention work to incorporate and make it stable in distributions.
So switching back was no longer an easy option
Also wrong. Not a single piece of major software doesn't work on non-systemd systems.
And many of these functionalities are way beyond the scope of an init system. It is almost a system
That was kind of the point. Starting a system and letting it be is 80s era OS design. Continual system management is what it's about. systemd is NOT an init system, it's a system management daemon, it's right there in the name.
When considerable amount of software regress (upower, etc)
If upower actually worked it wouldn't be abando
Re: (Score:2)
> Unrelated, I also found sound worked much easier in FreeBSD than it did in Linux with pulseaudio.
But firefox will not work without pulseaudio.
I think you can only run old versions of chrome on FreeBSD.
I know you can only run old version of LibreOffice on FreeBSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a single statement you made is true.
You can turn off PulseAudio in make config.
Latest download on LibreOffice's website: 5.3.3
Latest FreeBSD package available: 5.3.3
Latest available stable chrome(ium)
58.0.3029.110
Latest available in FreshPorts: 58.0.3029.110
.
Good on them, from someone still on Debian (Score:5, Insightful)
I genuinely mean it, good on them. Systemd isn't of that bigger deal to me, but at least these people have gone ahead and done something instead of just sitting around complaining about the fact that they don't agree with having systemd in a Debian default install. That's my biggest peeve with a lot of people in the Open Source community.....they're good at complaining, but they never do anything about it. These people actually have.
I wish them all the best and I hope Devuan has a long and happy life. Perhaps I'll check it out some time :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on board (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
wicd seems to do an acceptable job.
sweet (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been using Devuan for some time now. I actually lack a lot of the required technical expertise to really have an opinion one way or the other about systemd.
However, I've been around long enough to know what kind of effect, 'dumbing things down has', and it's a great staple in American culture.
It's this sort of why have 5 buttons when you can have 1 button do everything. If you know what I'm talking about I don't need to explain it, and if you don't, you probably don't care and enjoy things being du
How do install systemd? (Score:3)
Can I do apt-get install systemd ?
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the devuan mailing list, when the question of systemd installation gets brought up (usually in a half baked attempt to troll) the response is "if you want systemd on devuan, install debian".
If the same counter question was brought up on debian mailing lists "can I keep sysvinit on debian". The answer was some variation of "you can (but things won't work properley) you'll get systemd anyway.We voted decision made. Sysvinit is dead etc. etc. "
The truth is that as devuan developers have found, tha
Re: (Score:2)
Except that last I checked, Slackware does not use systemd. Gratefully.
Re: (Score:2)
But why? (Score:2)
You can still run Debian with an init system that is not systemd. In fact, several Debian Developers are doing exactly that. There are even packages in the archive which facilitate using software that would otherwise require systemd as an init system to work without it (see systemd-shim). So what is Devuan doing that Debian doesn't offer already? Is it that Devuan compiles everything without even libsystemd0? But what harm is having libsystemd0 installed if you can at the same time still use your init syste
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
How does this affect anyone? Linux has 2% market share. That tiny percentage is dominated by Ubuntu and Red Hat. Why does anyone care about this distribution? Nobody will use it. It is inconsequential and isn't news at all.
Developers use Ubuntu; server admins use Debian. And server admins who consider systemd to be a destabilizing atrocity that chucks reliability out the window in favor of GNOME edge cases now have an option.
What I'd really love is a Fedora fork (or EL clone, such as Scientific Linux) that reverts to the EL6 initscript build-out and considers systemd as just another option to be used on top of a standard SysV base -- much like xinetd. There if you need it, but not affecting the core.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
server admins use Debian. And server admins who consider systemd to be a destabilizing atrocity that chucks reliability out the window in favor of GNOME edge cases
What are these server admins doing? I have the defaults on EL7 and Debian 8 and all I notice is the VM's come up much faster and with fewer race conditions than under previous inits.
This is over dozens of unique VM images, but they're all doing pretty standard server stuff. What unusual things are people doing that break systemd-based distros?
I understand that some people have philosophical objections - fine - but I haven't heard any of my colleagues complaining of actual instability or unreliability.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My own anecdotal systemd experience has been positive, on desktops and servers. It is a major improvement over sysvinit, and many of the improvements make it a lot easier to admin a server.
For some reason I only ever use my
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how this is modded as flamebait, ...
Because some moderators downgrade things they don't agree with or understand - like contrary opinions or sarcasm.
Welcome to /.
Re: (Score:3)
> Maybe I take exception to the level of hate directed at the
Maybe because some of us simply prefer not to use systemd, and see piles and piles of hate and derision directed at us. Some of that hatred has come directly from Lennart Poettering, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
But what are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
https://lists.freedesktop.org/... [freedesktop.org]
Specifically:
> Unless the systemd-haters prepare another kdbus userspace until
> then this will effectively also mean that we will not support
> non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that point.
> Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call.
>
> Lennart
Now another thing in there. Just because I prefer not to run systemd, I have been characterized as a "hater". Other than the fact that I'm also not into Taylor Swift, I'm not that much into the whole "hat
Re: (Score:3)
No, you keyed off of the wrong sentence. Look at, "Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call." Up until the Devuan fork, Gentoo and Slackware were the only Linux distributions not converting to systemd. There was context surrounding this quote, implying the inexorable forcing of systemd into Gentoo.
I will add that you've got a bit of the attitude here, too. Note your words, "fact resistant, knee-jerk reaction against progress". There are certainly interesting ideas in systemd, I'll grant that. However ov
Re: (Score:3)
> That's also not a pile of hate. You could say it's not polite, but the implied message that I pick up on here is that Gentoo will need to implement alternatives to systemd technologies if they
> want to continue to benefit from other software projects that use systemd.
The you missed something in earlier lines in that post. Gentoo already maintains its own udev fork, eudev, so that's not the issue. He spoke of moving kernel event signalling from netlink to kdbus, which "breaks userspace" at a much m
Re: (Score:3)
> Specifically I was asking about examples of piles of hate. It's okay if you want to retract that statement.
No, but I'm not sure I feel like retreading that ground at the moment. I may keep one of these links around, in case I do. In the meantime, I'm running my computer as I see fit, and am only mildly inconvenienced by the things that require systemd. Incidentally, as far as userspace goes, I never had packages that required sysv, upstart, or whatever. Usually once the system is up, applications h
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Perfectly legitimate question. As a sysadmin myself, only problem I've had with systemd is when I upgraded one system. It had an entry in the /etc/fstab file for a removable USB drive. I had to append "nofail" to the options for that entry, to ensure the system booted properly.
Otherwise, it's been smooth sailing. From a practical perspective, systemd works fine.
Someone with mod points and a liking for sceptical attitudes will soon ensure you're modded up again.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
I gave systemD a spin on a VM to see if it would be suitable. Unfortunately, it flunked when I disconnected a redundant drive and it flatly refused to even attempt to mount /home in degraded mode. It just dropped me to the emergency shell. I attempted the mount command by hand to see the diagnostics and iot worked perfectly. It seems there is no way to make a command imperative. I looked on the mailing lists and found exactly the same problem with RAID. The response was a collective shrug.
I can absolutely work around that problem, but I can't just put aside the fact that the developers just don't give a crap because it would be a hard problem and their architecture won't accommodate a solution cleanly.
It's just too brittle for me to want it in charge of a server.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
You got a collective shrug because the problem was with mdadm not reporting the UUID correctly early in the boot process and not with systemd itself. This was fixed last year in mdadm 3.4.4 and if you search on the topic you won't find a problem of booting degraded affecting current releases of Debian, Ubuntu or CentOS, unless your mdadm config specifically says to not boot degraded.
The thing people are complaining about is precisely what lead to this problem in the first place. Everyone complains about the monoculture of systemd, but the monoculture of sysvinit not being effected by some design bugs in other software is what is causing a lot of this other software to fail due to undocumented or unexpected behaviour. Then people misattribute it to systemd and complain when systemd developers don't bend over backwards to accommodate bugs in other people's software.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since I was using BTRFS, I sincerely doubt mdadm was the problem. What I was seeing was another manifestation of the same basic issue, systemD THOUGHT it understood the dependencies but in fact, it did not. That's why it wouldn't even try the mount command.
The systemd design failure is that it refuses to acknowledge that there can be such a situation where it has no idea what the dependencies might be. It demands that everything else must conform to it's concept of what constitutes a dependency. It doesn't even have a way to tell it "use this external program to decide if dependencies have been met" nor does it have a way to tell it just give it a try and if the command returns no error, all is well.
Bottom line, stubbing systemd out and using SysV to bring the VM up worked flawlessly. One of MS's sins is that they demand a perfect world in order to work correctly and will not allow the admin to tell it to just give it a try. Systemd shares that sin. Without systemd, a great advantage of Linux is that when the actually intelligent human knows more than the system, the system will defer to his of her judgement and the job gets done.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you defend systemd! Only the opinions of crusty old sys admins who were around when Linus' balls dropped are relevant here!
But seriously I don't really get it either. I made the change from Squeeze to Jessie for my server and while it was a little frustrating at first I soon learned my way around systemd. I haven't had any stability or unreliability issues either. Then again I've only been using Linux regularly for the past 5-6 years, so I don't really have any emotional attachment to the way thing
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple's LaunchD (also about to be used in FreeBSD) to Ubuntu's Upstart.
I don't think LaunchD is about to be used in FreeBSD.
> Upstart never got this amount of hate
Upstart is just an init system. SystemD radically changes everything about Linux.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think many of the people complaining about systemd are "crusty old sys admins", I think we're talking about mostly hobbyists who don't like change. SysV init has never been considered a thing of beauty by those who have to maintain GNU/Linux (or any *ix) systems. That's why systemd is the latest in a long line of replacements, from Apple's LaunchD (also about to be used in FreeBSD) to Ubuntu's Upstart.
Strongly disagree here, at least from RedHat land. SysV-style init scripts have been a solved problem for quite a while. If there are problems, they're usually a result of the daemon/app itself having problems that workarounds are needed for -- workarounds that usually end up in the systemd.service files as well unless upstream finally did something about the underlying issues.
Seriously, when I need to create an init script for something in EL6, just cut and paste https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:SysVInitScripts?rd=Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscript_template [fedoraproject.org], change a few variables and/or add customization needed, and you're done. It's not rocket science and worked perfectly adequately. BSD folks complained about using chkconfig to manage your rcX.d/ structure (compared to rc.conf), but that wasn't that hard to figure out.
Debian (and Ubuntu) init scripts, on the other hand, seem to more or less be an unmitigated dumpster fire of strange techniques and non-standardization. But I've been a RH guy for forever. If systemd had come out of Debian-world, I'd totally understand its genesis and probably sympathize more. That it came out of Fedora/RH strikes me as quite bizarre. The only thing systemd could use to really justify itself with at F14/F15 time was boot speed, something which Debian had seen good improvements at by swapping https://wiki.debian.org/DashAsBinSh [debian.org]. Had Fedora/RH adopted that, we might not have seen systemd exalted to the degree it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Radical changes are justified by radical improvements.
Systemd is certainly not a radical improvement.
So how is systemd justified?
Re: (Score:2)
With some simple directives in unit files (which are simple INI style data files, not scripts) you can access some powerful features, for example ReadOnlyPaths, PrivateNetwork, PrivateUsers, ProtectHome.
systemd also brings instantiated services, socket activation, a simple cgroups interface [freedesktop.org]. Want to limit CPU for a running service, or for everything currently running for a user without restart
Re: (Score:2)
The initial implementation of systemd on CentOS 7 left a great deal to be desired.
Whether it's Lennart's fault or someone else's it managed to piss a few people off - hence some of the (frequently shouted down) comments about systemd here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One, as you say, it's a philosophical issue. It goes against the small sharp tools principle, and also people don't like being forced.
Two, you say it works for you. That's nice, but it seems that there are people for whom it doesn't work, and when it doesn't work it doesn't work big time. It's like a dog that doesn't bite until the day it chews a kid's face off.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is, when it doesn't work it is 99% usually one of the following problems,
A) They intentionally broke it, or were doing something to workaround missing initd functionality and it clashed with systemd. For example, see above post where user is using wicd without disabling an already existing network daemon, probably networkmanager. They blame this on systemd. Solution: use a clean systemd distro, and migrate old configs on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. Many old and crusty initd workaround are no longer needed, and if you blindly go in trying to use them anyway, you are going to create problems for yourself.
B) Software has bugs in it, bugs that were not noticed before with initd because initd did not depend on that functionality working correctly. For example, see above post where user couldn't boot in degraded mode because of a bug in mdadm. They blame this on systemd when all systemd is doing is depending on mdadm to report the drive UUID correctly. The fix in mdadm fixes the problem. Probably, in this case, initd is not affected because it doesn't (or can be made to not) use the UUID when mounting the pool, which is a generally bad practice overall. There is a fair quibble to be had here with distro maintainers who have not properly vetted all aspects of the system to uncover these bugs earlier in the process, but getting these bugs out into the open is the only way they get fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, nobody is being forced. Every developer and contributor anywhere is completely free to make their own Linux distribution without systemd, or fork an existing one. You can't say, "The Fedora and Debian developers picked systemd, and I don't want it, so they're forcing me!!!!!" - you don't have the right to make other free software contributors use the specifi
Re: (Score:2)
> and I don't see anybody yelling that we should be using RCS and ed.
No, we say you should use vim instead of emacs, and git actually WAS designed as a bunch of small sharp tools.
Re:Who cares? I do (Score:3, Informative)
What are these server admins doing?
I can't speak for them, however in our use cases we use initd to control server processes where we want control over the application latency, generally using CPU isolation and affinity. We built a test lab to understand how systemd would interact with our application and so we could learn it well ahead of our clients attempting deployment. This is a quality mindset used in ISO environments that prevents downtime.
For some inexplicable reason a lot of people seem to think that if you want to use initd you do
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For some inexplicable reason a lot of people seem to think that if you want to use initd you don't know anything about systemd
It would help if you didn't reinforce that perception with such a poor use case justification.
initd isn't a large monolithic process that generates a lot of software interrupts
Systemd is not a large monolithic process. By software interrupts, I assume you mean it uses dbus instead of just piping everything to stdout. The difference really is whether there is a defined message pattern to the IPC (dbus) or just a dump of whatever data in whatever random format that has to be parsed by the receiving process (FIFO). While the latter has certainly worked, I think it is hard to argue against t
Re: (Score:2)
unit files are soft replacement for not knowing how to shell script properly,
Why should you have to know how to shell script to boot your system properly? How is it better to have a full shell interpreter executing arbitrary logic to load system services better than just parsing a config file? That argument just makes no sense whatsoever.
If you do not know how to shell script, you have no business administering a server (ie, being a sysadmin) in a real-world environment. systemd may be fine for end-user graphical boot desktop environments (launchd works great for OS X), but this experience is from systems engineering and administration's perspective.
There are plenty of reasons why having logic over a config file is a tenable position. It basically boils down to: If you start with complex logic in a simple language, you can always simplify y
Re: (Score:3)
It would help if you didn't reinforce that perception with such a poor use case justification.
I don't profess to be a systemd expert, just that I've tested it and tried to see what benefits it can offer.
Systemd is not a large monolithic process.
systemd has its own lib directory. It is a much more memory intensive process than init.
By software interrupts, I assume you mean it uses dbus instead of just piping everything to stdout.
No. I mean it generates interrupts for service from the CPU and steals context from other processes. If it write I/O it forces other processes to minor page fault back to ram and off the CPU core. Though I still have more research in this area about systemd behavior.
That argument just makes no sense whatsoever. Shell scripts were a quick and dirty way of getting a system up and running.
Which shows you are using inncorect assumptions
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a server admin guru or anything, but I do admin quite a few CentOS 6 & 7 machines, mostly VMs. With our stack, we haven't had any issues with systemd. Ok, a slight adjustment in a few commands, but CentOS 7 is just as solid as all our other versions have been.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazon's Default AMI Linux is systemd-less, and is very possibly the most widely deployed linux distribution in use on servers.
Re: (Score:2)
An option that's merely 2.5 years out of date compared to Debian proper. Which is already not famed for being bleeding edge.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why everyone seems to love Ubuntu. The desktop is horrific. It makes me long for Windows Vista. It's truly awful.
Fedora with KDE seems to be the most sane option at the moment. Might try Debian with KDE because apt is rather nice and I'm used to running it on various Pis and VMs.
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
I i was a cop with a Debian system i would also be tempted
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Systemd is a modular architecture with many small pieces plugged together.
It may theoretically be a modular architecture, but it forces an entirely novel paradigm on the system... and it did so through strong-arm tactics. A replacement for systemd that doesn't end up just reverting back to SysV will have to end up looking a lot like systemd as a result. Welcome to complexity lock-in that no one asked for.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
How does this affect anyone? Linux has 2% market share. That tiny percentage is dominated by Ubuntu and Red Hat. Why does anyone care about this distribution? Nobody will use it. It is inconsequential and isn't news at all.
While I agree with your general sentiment, I think your counting is off. I think there are a few non-desktop systems that run linux, so that 2% number may be a little low.
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, they didn't do it for market share. They did it for themselves and then shared it with everybody. Bravo to them.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Linux has 2% market share.
He said, posting from a machine that doesn't use Linux, the packets quickly routed through a machine that uses Linux, to a farm of Linux boxes, to a box that runs Linux, which stored the information.
Re: (Score:2)
...or if he posted it from his tablet or phone, better than even odds that was also a machine using Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
How does this affect anyone? Linux has 2% market share. That tiny percentage is dominated by Ubuntu and Red Hat. Why does anyone care about this distribution? Nobody will use it. It is inconsequential and isn't news at all.
Let's see... Windows only holds a majority in the DESKTOP market.
In mobile, the vast majority of devices are Android, and iOS comes in second. All Android devices are Linux. They also don't use systemd.
In servers, Windows holds a minority market share. Guess who the leader is? Linux. Even on Microsoft's own cloud (Azure) a hugely significant portion of users are using Linux - the numbers keep going up for Linux - started out 1:5 use Linux when they first published about it, and it's something like 1:3 no
Re: (Score:2)
Oh shit, I didn't realize that my software has to be the most popular for me to use it. I totally should have read the manual more closely.
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
> I learned Unity.
Unity3D, the multiplatform development environment, or Unity, the now-defunct user interface?
> I learned systemd. It's not bad at all.
The problem is really how quickly it blazed through the community, as major distro after major distro switched to it, and how it was suddenly present in everything. Opting out was overly difficult. If it had moved slower, you'd have seen systemdless distros pop up in due time, instead of after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is really how quickly it blazed through the community
You know just the other day I was reading about how some people were bemoaning the Firefox piece that pointed out Google for how big it was and how little we have in the way for emergency braking should Google start abusing that power with respect to W3C and web standards (basically, Google is in a position to stomp out the relevance of W3C, make the web work the way they feel it should, and little to nothing anyone can do to stop that, should it come to pass and thus we might want to rethink how the govern
Re:I thought this died in the wind (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe systemd has won the day, but that's no reason to stop people from working on a systemd-free system if that's what they want to do. Maybe systemd will turn out to be the disaster the naysayers were predicting and we'll all be happy they didn't give up. More likely, it will remain a hobby project for a handful of people who are resisting change for the sake of resisting change.
Ultimately, though, that's their choice. When systemd really started taking over, one of the regular comments was that people who didn't like it were free to fork their own distributions that didn't use it. Nobody who said that back then should complain because somebody took them seriously. As long as they aren't actively interfering with anyone else, they should be free to pursue their interests. Real freedom of choice includes the freedom to make unpopular choices.
Re: I thought this died in the wind (Score:2)
But with no competition they would probably never fix the logging dropped messages. Hopefully one day systemd will fix that.
Re: I thought this died in the wind (Score:4, Interesting)
That does make it terrible to use systemd on a server. Had a typo yesterday with BIND. Before systemd, the error message would have been displayed on the console. Now, it is dropped by the journal so it made troubleshooting difficult especially since we host over 1,900 domains so we didn't know which file to look in.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I thought this died in the wind (Score:4, Informative)
You would look in the syslog file you configured bind messages to go to. Or with that many domains, you would run a config test on all zone file before you reload the config. I don't have that many domains configured and I have scripts that alert me to config errors as well as scripts that alert me to domains that are no longer pointing at my server.
Feel free to use my email address to contact me if you need to improve your hosting environment.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand binary log files and then the same text processing tools recreated in order to read said binary log files.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
and this "swallowing" of error messages is total crap.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.loggly.com/ultimat... [loggly.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't systemd?
Re: (Score:2)
*journalctl wasn't made to save all messages. This is your misunderstanding.*
I think the gist of this conversation is systemd wankers just replying and saying something wasnt meant to save/show them and the new way is better - without actually TELLING HOW THE FUCK TO SEE THE ERROR MESSAGES WITH SYSTEMD.
if something wasn't made for seeing, then maybe tell us/them what the fuck it is that is supposed to show the error messages - if not then the point still stands that it drops error messages for no good reaso
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has not. It will likely remain an option for a long time (because people are stupid), but nowhere near has it destroyed its competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Props to them for the commitment but systemd ( and all its warts) has won the day.
systemd has only won the day by fiat. There's a lot of people that are not happy about systemd. I've been looking forward to Devuan, and will probably start moving all my systems over to it. I caught the 1.0 release when updating my RPi3. My next laptop will probably be running it too - though I'll have to verify the external PPAs I use (Docker, KDE) work with it just fine too. But yeah...I don't need the trash heap that is systemd.
Re: (Score:3)
Fascinating. By the same logic, ACs have around 0.001% of the intelligence of normal people. Hey, that one may actually be true!