On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.

"CheersRalf"

On 08/14/12 14:59, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>> and easier for most users to maintain
>
> USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
> "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
> simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
> start from the beginning, every half year.
>
> Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
> PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
>
> "CheersRalf"
>
>
>
Tell me what's hard about systemd?


Ah well as soon as RHEL switches to systemd, more and more distro's will
switch, so soon you might have to use it (So better learn it now )

--
Jelle van der Waa

On 08/14/2012 08:45 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:

On Monday 13 Aug 2012 12:34:26 Joakim Hernberg wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:16 +0530

Alternatively we will all be running systemd one day whether we
want to or not I suspect that this has been the game plan all the
time though. OK, flames away I guess

Wow, this sounds so much like a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the
people who write the code inevitably dictate which software is maintained,
based on their interests and convictions, and they're pretty much unanimous
that systemd is a better solution to the problem of booting and maintaining
daemons than the solution we currently have.

So yeah, I guess that's been the game plan all along: make booting and daemon
control more consistent, faster, and easier for most users to maintain.

Paul


I don't understand your point....

What is so wrong with the booting using sysvinit?

I really don't need what systemd offers and sysvinit does everything I
need and has not failed me.


So is your point that I need to move to systemd because the developers
tell me I must?


As for systemd being better solution for the problem of booting the
beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I just don't see it, so why
take away sysvint?


You can use systemd and I should be able to use what works for me and
not be forced down the systemd path.


Isn't this what open source software freedom is all about or did I miss
something....I have use linux from the redhat 5.2 (no I am not talking
the enterprise version) days.

On 08/09/2012 03:13 PM, Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia wrote:

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:58:41AM -0400, Baho Utot wrote:

Yes looks like I will need to migrate to BSD

I've already begun using FreeBSD. Only real complaint I have is that my notmuch database isn't backwards compatible with the one they have in ports. Other than that, it's been a smooth transition.

I was always most attracted to arch by its proximity to the BSD's. With all this talk of systemd, I felt it was time to bring that proximity to fruition.

Arch remains on my laptop for the time being. I have fond memories of Arch that I hope do not dwindle.


I think Arch was good back in the day.

Now not so good.

I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
using pacman for the package manager.

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 15:05 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> So better learn it now

That might be true, since I don't think I have a choice, e.g. switching
to BSD seems no alternative for my needs.

I should install a second Arch with full Poettering code ... take some
drugs, e.g. Diazepam ... and then learn.

I'm still waiting for some Russian spam, that offers similar drugs.

Regards,
Ralf

On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:

and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.

"CheersRalf"





Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.

On 08/14/2012 09:05 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

On 08/14/12 14:59, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:

and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.

"CheersRalf"




Tell me what's hard about systemd?


Ah well as soon as RHEL switches to systemd, more and more distro's will
switch, so soon you might have to use it (So better learn it now )



Or switch to something else.

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:13 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> >> and easier for most users to maintain
> > USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
> > "USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
> > simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
> > start from the beginning, every half year.
> >
> > Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
> > PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.
> >
> > "CheersRalf"
> >
> >
> >
>
> Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.
>
>

WritingPascalSavesAlotOf"Space"ButTheCodeTendsToBe comeUnreadable.
OkPascalCaseIsnTtheOnlyIssueWithPascalItEgAlsoTeac hedUsToDoTheWorkTheCompilerShouldDoRegardingToEgVa riables.
ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64An dDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead.
RegardsRalf

On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:12:30 Baho Utot wrote:
> I think Arch was good back in the day.
>
> Now not so good.

This sounds a bit inflammatory and over-generalised. Presumably what you don't
like about Arch now is the fact that it will potentially change its default
init system sometime in the not-too-distant future? I'd be interested to hear
if there's anything else that has made you switch.

> I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
> It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
> using pacman for the package manager.

I'm genuinely curious about this: if you're using pacman as the package
manager, are you building your own packages and hosting your own package
repository, or are you using the standard Arch repositories? If it's the
latter, it sounds like you'd end up with an Arch system that happened to be
bootstrapped using LFS...

Paul

On 08/14/2012 09:23 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 09:13 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:

On 08/14/2012 08:59 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:

and easier for most users to maintain

USERS? I'm a stupid user. I guess you're talking about experts. For
"USERS" it's hard to follow changes every half year. We stupid users
simply want to use the computer. We are willing to learn, but we won't
start from the beginning, every half year.

Btw. I'm a computer dino, so for me nothing is bad with the obsolete
PASCAL style of the configs. Oh wait, I always hated to program Pascal.

"CheersRalf"




Aye yes pascal, learned a lot from that language I did.



WritingPascalSavesAlotOf"Space"ButTheCodeTendsToBe comeUnreadable.
OkPascalCaseIsnTtheOnlyIssueWithPascalItEgAlsoTeac hedUsToDoTheWorkTheCompilerShouldDoRegardingToEgVa riables.
ImightBeMistakenSinceIonlyTestedPascalWithTheC64An dDecidedToUseAssemblerInstead.
RegardsRalf




What no turbo pascal?