The 22/07/12, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> Simple example: I didn't have consolekit for some years, and I don't
> care about whatever it has to offer.

...This may be why you don't understand benefits of such tools...

> So far it hasn't done anything evil except being useless and
> consuming system resources (50 or so threads).

...and why you think it's only comsuming resources.

> Same about polkit

Erf! Same causes, same consequences?

Do you really think upstream developers are all doing the bad choices in
order to make you feel less compliant with the so-loved historical Unix
philosophy?

Come'on guys. You can't make serious argumentation wihout making a bit
of expected normal researches or by starting in the /same/ mail "I don't
care about whatever it has to offer". Upstream choices is not about
feelings.

--
Nicolas Sebrecht

Am Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:36:05 +0200
schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr>:

> Sounds like you (don't take this a personal critism, you're not alone)
> have poor administration practices.

First, I do have administration practices.

> Editing multiple files instead of
> one in not a problem at all. In fact, it's the exactly opposite.
>
> The pain is the need to merge new changes while updating. Some tools
> (like pacdiff) can help with the job but it's very frustrating to have
> one configuration file and merge lot of changes in it. Especially when
> it comes to cosmetic/comments changes.
>
> Having one big configuration file means it's much easier to make
> mistakes in it and have strong problems because of that. Dedicated
> files to services/requirements make such problems more isolated. So,
> we're going a better robustness, better expectations compliance for
> new incoming users (and admins having more than one arch desktop to
> maintain).

You are right when it comes to such long config files like for Apache
or PHP. But we are talking about rc.conf. That is not a long
configuration file. And I really don't see how there are chances to
make mistakes.

Btw., chances that those merging tools make mistakes are much bigger
with such big config files like e.g. php.ini. And it takes a lot more
time to check if they did their job correctly.

> Who is manually editing each configuration one after the other need
> lessons on administration tasks.

I don't think so. Who manually edits config files just don't trust all
those merging tools, because he has made bad experience with those
tools or has other reasons and wants to keep full control over his
config files. And believe me, checking if the merging tools made what
they are expected to do is much more time consuming than manually
editing those files.

How many times do you get a .pacnew file? And how big are those files
usually?

I don't need to edit those files so many times. And if I have only one
short file like /etc/rc.conf I have all my settings at a glance and
only need to type "nano /etc/rc.conf" only once instead of several
times "nano /etc/vconsole.conf", "nano /etc/hostname.conf" or whatever.
This is a lot more time consuming. Btw., in several cases a simple "mv
something.conf.pacnew something.conf is sufficient.

But this all (I mean the whole discussion here) is complaining on a high
level, a very high level.

And Tom already said several times, that he will support both the
single rc.conf and the separate config files. So I really don't
understand this discussion. I just hope that those single files are not
created by default or will be integrated into systemd, so that they are
only installed if systemd is installed.

> If merging tools are not good enough,
> then let's improve them. But please all, don't make a shoot on current
> changes.

Then improve the merging tools. I haven't complained about them, and I
don't use them. You brought them in.

> What Tom is doing is exactly what most of ArchLinux users
> expect.

That's why there is such a long discussion and why most people
write that they are worried about it. I would rather say, it's what you
expect.

I have experience with both and principally don't have a problem with
both ways. I just say that I prefer one single /etc/rc.conf, because
it's clearer and easier to maintain.

> And the philosophy, KISS principle or whatever theory that you
> think is good in Archlinux is not beeing broken at all.

One single /etc/rc.conf is a bit more KISS. But like I said that's
complaining on a very high level.

Heiko

The 23/07/12, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:36:05 +0200
> schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr>:

> > Who is manually editing each configuration one after the other need
> > lessons on administration tasks.
>
> I don't think so. Who manually edits config files just don't trust all
> those merging tools, because he has made bad experience with those
> tools or has other reasons and wants to keep full control over his
> config files. And believe me, checking if the merging tools made what
> they are expected to do is much more time consuming than manually
> editing those files.

I think we are not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about
merging tools. I don't know of any merging tool on earth doing the choice
of patching whithout asking for conflict resolution from the user.

> I don't need to edit those files so many times. And if I have only one
> short file like /etc/rc.conf I have all my settings at a glance and
> only need to type "nano /etc/rc.conf" only once instead of several
> times "nano /etc/vconsole.conf", "nano /etc/hostname.conf" or whatever.
> This is a lot more time consuming.

No, no. Even without merging tool, 3 or 5 files instead of one is not
time consuming.

What is time consuming is a system strongly damaged because of human
mistake in a configuration file, more likely to happen with a
one-central-configuration-file-for-non-related-things-around.

> One single /etc/rc.conf is a bit more KISS.

One single rc.conf is not KISS. :-)
I think this principle is mainly misunderstood.

KISS principle makes sense for integration from upstream. It's definetly
NOT about "how simple it looks like".

--
Nicolas Sebrecht

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:30:37AM +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 22/07/12, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> > Simple example: I didn't have consolekit for some years, and I don't
> > care about whatever it has to offer.
>
> ...This may be why you don't understand benefits of such tools...

If you could point out the benefits it could have for me
please do. Until some recent xdm update I didn't have ck,
and everything worked exactly as I wanted it. That is still
the case, so at best ck is useless for me, it just eats
recources.

> ...and why you think it's only comsuming resources.

So what else is it doing ? Please tell me why you think
I need it. Mount usb keys as a normal user ? I can arrange
that without ck. Change ownership of some things to a
'local' login ? I don't want that to happen. Anything
else ?

--
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

The 23/07/12, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> Please tell me why you think
> I need it. Mount usb keys as a normal user ?

So, you're more aware of some benefits than what you stated before.

> I can arrange
> that without ck.

So, requiring that someone has to "arrange" things is not the choice
done by upstream. Does it have to do with Arch? No. Precisely _because_
Arch wants itself to KISS.

> that without ck. Change ownership of some things to a
> 'local' login ? I don't want that to happen.

You're free to fight again changes or improvements. The simplest way I
know consist in installing a 70th year old system and don't update it.

--
Nicolas Sebrecht

Okay, time to drop my 0.02¢ as well. And I'm pretty sure everything said
here in this mail has been said elsewhere as well, but hey...

ArchLinux tries to be as KISS as possible. That's true. And I think, it
does a pretty good job at that. And switching to systemd with a couple
of config-files instead of one rc.conf might seem like a huge step away
from this principle, but in fact it ain't.

What is rc.conf used for right now anyway? Most of the settings in the
rc.conf are set during setup and not changed afterwards. I mean, who
changes his locale or his hostname? Then there are deamons, it's really
nice to have an array where you enter a name for a startup service and
this array is used to start services fifo. Great. But as far as I saw,
systemd provides a simple command to add services and the like. And
since it works for services, mountpoints and sockets alike, it provides a good
and coherent way to work with a lot of your system-admin things... I
like that.

So.. in my point of view, it's not such a bad thing that rc.conf gets
replaced by a couple of other files and a nice cli-interface.

For you this change might be a reason to switch to Fedora, you say. I
mean, seriously? How is it all handled in Fedora then? Well, I don't
now, actually. But I get kinda offended by neglecting the features that
ArchLinux really make the best linux distro out there imho:

- It's a rolling release distro: You only have to carefully do pacman
-Syu to keep your system up-to-date. I started using Linux with Ubuntu
and first I really looked forward to a new release, I mean new
features, new artwork and all that stuff. But distupgrade nearly
always failed and so I re-installed my system every six months. This
is not good! With ArchLinux I can spent way more time just using my
system instead of playing admin.

- It has pacman: Pacman really is KISS. It does its job and it does it
really, really good. It's fast and quite simple to use and to
configure.

- It has PKGBUILD: If you want compile a package due to some patches or
extra settings (by using ABS) or if you want to install a package that
is not in the official repos, you have to work with PKGBUILD and
makepkg. The first being a really nice and easy to grasp file you can
read and understand and configure to your own desires, the second
being a tool to download the desired software, take care of
dependencies and compiling the software. This is just dead-simple and
great. KISS again, through and through.

- Mentioned a lot of times: the community, the wiki and the mailinglist,
the channel. All of them are excellent and outstanding.

Well, That's why I am staying with ArchLinux, that's why I came back
after enjoying Gentoo for quite a while, that's why I recommend it to
people asking me with which Linux they should go.

Maybe you really switch to Fedora due to rc.conf losing it's job a
little, maybe you just did a great job trolling the list, I'm glad to
write down why I really like ArchLinux

1126












On Sun, 22. Jul 06:59, fredbezies wrote:
>
> ---- text added by mvmf mail filter ----
>
> mvmda: regcomp failed.
> mvmda: regcomp failed.
> mvmda: regcomp failed.
>
>
> ---- end of text added by mvmf mail filter ----
>
>
> Hello.
>
> I've read all the arguments of Tom and Ionut. Here is my own $0.02 on
> it. When I started using archlinux back in end of 2008, the winning
> point was this file. A centralized one where you can set up a lot of
> single options.
>
> It is *far* simpler to edit /etc/rc.conf to load daemons or modules
> than editing 2 or 3 files.
>
> "Killing" /etc/rc.conf can't be do so soon. Or you'll see a lot of old
> users moving their on other distributions. For me it will be a one way
> ticket to fedora. And I *do hate* this idea.
>
> But developpers must know better than users what is the best for the
> distro. Killing /etc/rc.conf ? Why not. But for me, it is more KISS
> oriented than /etc/locale.conf, /etc/vconsole.conf,
> /etc/modprobe.d/*.conf files.
>
> As I said, it is my $0.02. Excuse my bad english, I'm no really awake !
>
> --
> Frederic Bezies
> fredbezies@gmail.com

On 23 July 2012 11:35, 1126 <mailinglists@elfsechsundzwanzig.de> wrote:
> Okay, time to drop my 0.02¢ as well. And I'm pretty sure everything said
> here in this mail has been said elsewhere as well, but hey...
> [...]
> the features that ArchLinux really make the best linux distro out there imho:
> [...]

Good points indeed.

BTW, I've read the thread, I've reconsidered it my own opinions
and I've come to the conclusion that I have no reason to not to trust that
Arch developers won't keep their actions aligned with "The Arch Way".
As long as the "The Arch Way" won't wiggle too much or too often, I'm cool.

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, 1126
<mailinglists@elfsechsundzwanzig.de>wrote:

> For you this change might be a reason to switch to Fedora, you say. I
> mean, seriously? How is it all handled in Fedora then? Well, I don't
> now, actually.
>

Fedora is RedHat, and that's where systemd came to live, so you can guess...


> - It's a rolling release distro: You only have to carefully do pacman
> -Syu to keep your system up-to-date. I started using Linux with Ubuntu
> and first I really looked forward to a new release, I mean new
> features, new artwork and all that stuff. But distupgrade nearly
> always failed and so I re-installed my system every six months. This
> is not good! With ArchLinux I can spent way more time just using my
> system instead of playing admin.
>

Well said. I came from Ubuntu also, and I expected that in Arch some things
would break because of it being rolling and more bleeding-edge than Ubuntu.
I accepted that, but as it happened, it breaks _less_ than Ubuntu.

And, actually, about the rc.conf split, I couldn't care less. One file,
three files, doesn't make a difference to me. As long as they are text
files, and not binary ones, like some other mainstream systems, all is good.

Just my 0.02 €
--
Regards.

2012/7/23 Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, 1126
> <mailinglists@elfsechsundzwanzig.de>wrote:
>
>> For you this change might be a reason to switch to Fedora, you say. I
>> mean, seriously? How is it all handled in Fedora then? Well, I don't
>> now, actually.
>>
>
> Fedora is RedHat, and that's where systemd came to live, so you can guess...
>

I wrote the first message before I successfully done a setup with a
minimal rc.conf

>
>> - It's a rolling release distro: You only have to carefully do pacman
>./> -Syu to keep your system up-to-date. I started using Linux with Ubuntu
>> and first I really looked forward to a new release, I mean new
>> features, new artwork and all that stuff. But distupgrade nearly
>> always failed and so I re-installed my system every six months. This
>> is not good! With ArchLinux I can spent way more time just using my
>> system instead of playing admin.
>>
>
> Well said. I came from Ubuntu also, and I expected that in Arch some things
> would break because of it being rolling and more bleeding-edge than Ubuntu.

For the record, I'm using arch since end of 2008 / beginning of 2009.

It is the first time I was very upset by a change from developer team.

> I accepted that, but as it happened, it breaks _less_ than Ubuntu.
>
> And, actually, about the rc.conf split, I couldn't care less. One file,
> three files, doesn't make a difference to me. As long as they are text
> files, and not binary ones, like some other mainstream systems, all is good.
>

Not 3, but 6 more files. I do agree you don't have to modify them
everyday, but it is - in a way - harder to set u than a single one.


> Just my 0.02 €
> --
> Regards.



--
Frederic Bezies
fredbezies@gmail.com

On 23/07/12 13:10, fredbezies wrote:
> 2012/7/23 Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, 1126
>> <mailinglists@elfsechsundzwanzig.de>wrote:
>>
>>> For you this change might be a reason to switch to Fedora, you say. I
>>> mean, seriously? How is it all handled in Fedora then? Well, I don't
>>> now, actually.
>>>
>>
>> Fedora is RedHat, and that's where systemd came to live, so you can guess...
>>
>
> I wrote the first message before I successfully done a setup with a
> minimal rc.conf
>
>>
>>> - It's a rolling release distro: You only have to carefully do pacman
>> ./> -Syu to keep your system up-to-date. I started using Linux with Ubuntu
>>> and first I really looked forward to a new release, I mean new
>>> features, new artwork and all that stuff. But distupgrade nearly
>>> always failed and so I re-installed my system every six months. This
>>> is not good! With ArchLinux I can spent way more time just using my
>>> system instead of playing admin.
>>>
>>
>> Well said. I came from Ubuntu also, and I expected that in Arch some things
>> would break because of it being rolling and more bleeding-edge than Ubuntu.
>
> For the record, I'm using arch since end of 2008 / beginning of 2009.
>
> It is the first time I was very upset by a change from developer team.
>
>> I accepted that, but as it happened, it breaks _less_ than Ubuntu.
>>
>> And, actually, about the rc.conf split, I couldn't care less. One file,
>> three files, doesn't make a difference to me. As long as they are text
>> files, and not binary ones, like some other mainstream systems, all is good.
>>
>
> Not 3, but 6 more files. I do agree you don't have to modify them
> everyday, but it is - in a way - harder to set u than a single one.
If it's documented it's hard?

Sure one file would be easier, but if the 3,4,5 or 6 files are
documented there should be no real problems.
>
>
>> Just my 0.02 €
>> --
>> Regards.
>
>
>


--
Jelle van der Waa