On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> But I think e.g. regarding the UNIX philosophy he is totally right. And

> Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too.

> Everything is and should stay a file, and every tool should do only
> one task but this should be done well. This is, btw., also the KISS
> philosophy.

Talking about "UNIX philosophy" and "Windoze like ini files" is
probably what gets some people going. It is not technical. Yeah, we
might agree that UNIX is great and Windows is bad. But in a technical
argument, it is just annoying to point to "tradition" and "philosophy"
rather than technical facts, regardless of what side of the argument
you are on.

If you claim that systemd does not follow the UNIX philosophy (I
disagree, but whatever), and if you claim that anything not following
the UNIX philosophy is bad (I disagree, but whatever), then you should
be able to combine these two claims and point to a technical flaw or
shortcomming in systemd without any reference to UNIX, or Windows, or
KISS at all.

> I really regularly wonder why people become offensive if other people
> say their opinions and if other people's opinions doesn't match their
> own opinions.

Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to
educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There
is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of
information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the
source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There
really is no excuse.

I try not to be offensive, but sometimes my exasperation shows through I guess.

-t

> Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to
> educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There
> is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of
> information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the
> source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There
> really is no excuse.

Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and
greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3,
I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do
work not to tinker. I need it to "just work" and continue working in
the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest
coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I
do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to
figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not
like it.

Calvin

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and
> greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3,
> I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do
> work not to tinker. I need it to "just work" and continue working in
> the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest
> coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I
> do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to
> figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not
> like it.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone should learn about systemd. My
comment was aimed at those who make claims about its benefits or
drawbacks.

-t

Op dinsdag 24 juli 2012 10:29:25 schreef Calvin Morrison:
> > Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to
> > educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There
> > is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of
> > information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the
> > source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There
> > really is no excuse.
>
> Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and
> greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3,
> I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do
> work not to tinker. I need it to "just work" and continue working in
> the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest
> coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I
> do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to
> figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not
> like it.
>
> Calvin

my 2cents on your usecase:
Arch Linux is always the newest and latest and ...
so maybe your use-case does not fit this distributions profile

if you really want everything to stay the same forever there are distributions
out there which fit your needs exactly, but in my idea Arch is not it.

--Ike

On 24 July 2012 10:43, Ike Devolder <ike.devolder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Op dinsdag 24 juli 2012 10:29:25 schreef Calvin Morrison:
>> > Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to
>> > educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There
>> > is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of
>> > information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the
>> > source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There
>> > really is no excuse.
>>
>> Well for me I do not have the time to go about learning the latest and
>> greatest init system, desktop environment, whatever. I still use KDE3,
>> I use old school init systems... why? because I use my system to do
>> work not to tinker. I need it to "just work" and continue working in
>> the same way it has. I don't want to become educated on the latest
>> coolest thing, I just want something that will work and work well. I
>> do not have time to pour through documentation of systemd just to
>> figure out how to work it. When change is just for change I do not
>> like it.
>>
>> Calvin
>
> my 2cents on your usecase:
> Arch Linux is always the newest and latest and ...
> so maybe your use-case does not fit this distributions profile
>
> if you really want everything to stay the same forever there are distributions
> out there which fit your needs exactly, but in my idea Arch is not it.
>
> --Ike

"To summarize: Arch Linux is a versatile, and simple distribution
designed to fit the needs of the competent Linux® user. It is both
powerful and easy to manage, making it an ideal distro for servers and
workstations. Take it in any direction you like. If you share this
vision of what a GNU/Linux distribution should be, then you are
welcomed and encouraged to use it freely, get involved, and contribute
to the community. Welcome to Arch!"

I have been using Arch since 2009. I like it a lot. It serves me very well :-)

Calvin

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too.

I honestly don't know if this is serious. What is the difference
between a "key=value" rc.conf and a "key=value" ini file of systemd?

--
Mantas MikulÄ—nas

Am 7/24/2012 4:51 PM, schrieb Mantas MikulÄ—nas:

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:

Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too.


I honestly don't know if this is serious. What is the difference
between a "key=value" rc.conf and a "key=value" ini file of systemd?



I think he refers to those sections: [Unit], [Service], [Install] and
whatnot, I have not explored all of those yet.


But, those are not Windows-like INI-Files. Those files are meant to be
following some XDG Desktop File Descripton Standard Whose Name I Not Now
(tm), making them easy parseable by existing libraries and programs that
implement this standard.


They are not enforced to be following this standard (show itself if you
have a type=forking .service and define multiple ExecStartPost sections
for instance), but are encouraged to be.


It's all in the documentation

But yes, in the end all of those are key=value pairs.

--
AUR: kritztopf
BBS: kritter
#archlinux{,-offtopic}@freenode: kritztopf

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Mantas MikulÄ—nas <grawity@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
>> Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too.
>
> I honestly don't know if this is serious. What is the difference
> between a "key=value" rc.conf and a "key=value" ini file of systemd?

+1
I'm not a dev, but the ini files seem pretty user friendly - I liked
them back on Windows too.


I think maybe we should use our user pages in the wiki to put our
thoughts into coherent writing, add links to back up our opinions etc.
This could bring some order to the discussion, help dispelling myths
and get rid oversimplifications.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Christoph Vigano <mail@cvigano.de> wrote:
> But, those are not Windows-like INI-Files. Those files are meant to be
> following some XDG Desktop File Descripton Standard Whose Name I Not Now
> (tm), making them easy parseable by existing libraries and programs that
> implement this standard.

It is based on the desktop-entry-spec:
<http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/>, which
in turn is (as far as I know) based on Window's .ini format.

-t

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:07:50 +0200
Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:

> Am Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:40:51 +1000
> schrieb Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org>:
>
> Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too.

One thing I noticed is that the only people who usually bash Windows are those
who don't develop or know very little about programming. What exactly is wrong
with ini files and/or registry? Perhaps it is your misunderstanding...

Over time various linux projects took a lot from windows: gconf/dconf
(~registry), KDE4 indexing services (~superfetch/desktop indexing),
systemd-journald (~windows event viewer). This is real, get used to it.

--
Leonid Isaev
GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D
Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D