FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-16-2012, 09:34 PM
Nicholas MIller
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:

> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
> last dev who really paid attention to the list said goodbye. Yet the free
> for all continues. I think a comment on Allan's blog post might illustrate
> how I perceive this situation.
>
> Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?
> Allan McRae posted to Arch Planet on August 13, 2012 03:59 PM
>
> It's not about a single file, ie rc.conf (well not completely), it's about
> the simplicity of the system.
>
> Controversy #2 – The demise of /etc/rc.conf
> While the single rc.conf is highlighted as major feature of Arch Linux,
> reading the reviews makes you notice that configuration of an Arch install
> was never down to a single file. Other files mentioned included…
>
> But lets take a step back here… How about some quotes from Judd, the
> founder of Arch Linux:
> “In Arch “simple” is different what other distros are considering.
> The learning is more important than getting something easily done.”
> “Relying on GUIs to build/use your system is just going to hurt a
> user in the end. At some point in time a user will need to know all that
> some GUIs hide.”
>
> My question becomes, are we trading the simplicity and ease of setting up a
> single individuals computer, not corporate or work machine, or a set of two
> or three home machines for the trappings of the corporate desktop? Are we
> trading learning the shell (bash or otherwise) and learning to write bug
> free shell scripts, for learning a set or arbitrary and possibly arcane
> rules, decided upon in a building somewhere in the world, by someone who
> knows how to use your computer better than you do? We've already seen the
> likes of those already seen with polkit and consolekit. Even with udev
> moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing list has already
> stated his desire to finally be rid of udev altogether. He considers it an
> abomination. As to the standardization mentioned, does not such
> standardization remove one's freedom? I'm not an RMS fan, so don't go
> there. However, I am old enough to remember when there was no choice for
> home computers, and a commercial by Apple for the first Mac using the idea
> of breaking out of 1984 and the dull boring corporate world. Now here we
> are moving the one OS that's stayed somewhat of a maverick into the stable,
> then out to pasture to graze with with the rest of the corporate world. At
> least IMHO. It's not about changing Arch, it's about becoming part of the
> corporate structure and playing nice with everyone else. You can read that
> line with the knowledge "Old hippies die hard. And I still don't trust the
> establishment as far a I can throw my house!"
>
> Interoperability is necessary in today's world, but I think it can be done
> with out sacrificing the heart and soul of Linux. When it comes to the move
> of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't like
> not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a
> mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but I can see the logic in cleaning up the
> system. I've never really cared for the mess of the LSB. IMHO systemd is
> for administrators who, unlike Judd Vinet, want to hide the system setup
> from the user with fancy gui's and not allow anyone but the sysadmin to
> make any changes.
>
> I laud the devs who are working on this project, but I ask you to consider
> "Is it better for Arch to lead one of the last bastion's of freedom when
> using Linux into lock step with the the PTB's, or would it be better to
> develop an alternative that keeps, not just Arch Linux, but Linux a viable
> alternative to OSX, Windows, any Unix/BSD environment, and the corporate
> world?" I know it's the simpler, and probably less stressfull solution, but
> is it the better solution?
>
> I firmly believe more discussions like this on the ml would be more
> productive than the brawls we've seen lately. It also might provide the
> dev's an opportunity to participate more instead of throwing their hands up
> in the air and saying never again. To me the mailing list has become
> reactive. Too many responses, I've been guilty of this, come from
> predetermined ideas which may or may not be rooted in fact. They may be
> rooted in the users experience which may have been affected by other
> circumstances such as the dependency hell being created by the tighter and
> tighter upstream integration by KDE and Gnome. This again signals the move
> towards a "corporate desktop environment".
>
> A wise unix guru, can't remember the name right now, said something to the
> effect "the system should be a set of well written programs loosely
> connected programs, each doing one thing and doing it well". Something many
> of today's programs don't accomplish.
>
> As I said on the arch-general mailing list. These are the battles that have
> spawned many a linux distro and there is always LFS, even though they moved
> to use udev inside systemd.
>
> Myra Nelson
>
> To those who I bcc'd this to;
>
> I would like to humbly appologize if I intruded on your personal space, but
> I wanted to make sure it would be read by you in your own private space
> without the need to filter through the BS that's likely to occur on the ml.
>
>
> --
> Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
>

That seems to be one of the more well thought out (not pro), responces to
systemd,
 
Old 08-16-2012, 10:09 PM
Myra Nelson
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Nicholas MIller <nick.kyky@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net>
> wrote:
>
> > There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move
> to
> > systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
> > "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
> > last dev who really paid attention to the list said goodbye. Yet the free
> > for all continues. I think a comment on Allan's blog post might
> illustrate
> > how I perceive this situation.
> >
> > Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?
> > Allan McRae posted to Arch Planet on August 13, 2012 03:59 PM
> >
> > It's not about a single file, ie rc.conf (well not completely), it's
> about
> > the simplicity of the system.
> >
> > Controversy #2 – The demise of /etc/rc.conf
> > While the single rc.conf is highlighted as major feature of Arch
> Linux,
> > reading the reviews makes you notice that configuration of an Arch
> install
> > was never down to a single file. Other files mentioned included…
> >
> > But lets take a step back here… How about some quotes from Judd, the
> > founder of Arch Linux:
> > “In Arch “simple” is different what other distros are
> considering.
> > The learning is more important than getting something easily done.”
> > “Relying on GUIs to build/use your system is just going to hurt a
> > user in the end. At some point in time a user will need to know all that
> > some GUIs hide.”
> >
> > My question becomes, are we trading the simplicity and ease of setting
> up a
> > single individuals computer, not corporate or work machine, or a set of
> two
> > or three home machines for the trappings of the corporate desktop? Are we
> > trading learning the shell (bash or otherwise) and learning to write bug
> > free shell scripts, for learning a set or arbitrary and possibly arcane
> > rules, decided upon in a building somewhere in the world, by someone who
> > knows how to use your computer better than you do? We've already seen the
> > likes of those already seen with polkit and consolekit. Even with udev
> > moving into systemd, an individual on the systemd mailing list has
> already
> > stated his desire to finally be rid of udev altogether. He considers it
> an
> > abomination. As to the standardization mentioned, does not such
> > standardization remove one's freedom? I'm not an RMS fan, so don't go
> > there. However, I am old enough to remember when there was no choice for
> > home computers, and a commercial by Apple for the first Mac using the
> idea
> > of breaking out of 1984 and the dull boring corporate world. Now here we
> > are moving the one OS that's stayed somewhat of a maverick into the
> stable,
> > then out to pasture to graze with with the rest of the corporate world.
> At
> > least IMHO. It's not about changing Arch, it's about becoming part of the
> > corporate structure and playing nice with everyone else. You can read
> that
> > line with the knowledge "Old hippies die hard. And I still don't trust
> the
> > establishment as far a I can throw my house!"
> >
> > Interoperability is necessary in today's world, but I think it can be
> done
> > with out sacrificing the heart and soul of Linux. When it comes to the
> move
> > of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't
> like
> > not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a
> > mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but I can see the logic in cleaning up the
> > system. I've never really cared for the mess of the LSB. IMHO systemd is
> > for administrators who, unlike Judd Vinet, want to hide the system setup
> > from the user with fancy gui's and not allow anyone but the sysadmin to
> > make any changes.
> >
> > I laud the devs who are working on this project, but I ask you to
> consider
> > "Is it better for Arch to lead one of the last bastion's of freedom when
> > using Linux into lock step with the the PTB's, or would it be better to
> > develop an alternative that keeps, not just Arch Linux, but Linux a
> viable
> > alternative to OSX, Windows, any Unix/BSD environment, and the corporate
> > world?" I know it's the simpler, and probably less stressfull solution,
> but
> > is it the better solution?
> >
> > I firmly believe more discussions like this on the ml would be more
> > productive than the brawls we've seen lately. It also might provide the
> > dev's an opportunity to participate more instead of throwing their hands
> up
> > in the air and saying never again. To me the mailing list has become
> > reactive. Too many responses, I've been guilty of this, come from
> > predetermined ideas which may or may not be rooted in fact. They may be
> > rooted in the users experience which may have been affected by other
> > circumstances such as the dependency hell being created by the tighter
> and
> > tighter upstream integration by KDE and Gnome. This again signals the
> move
> > towards a "corporate desktop environment".
> >
> > A wise unix guru, can't remember the name right now, said something to
> the
> > effect "the system should be a set of well written programs loosely
> > connected programs, each doing one thing and doing it well". Something
> many
> > of today's programs don't accomplish.
> >
> > As I said on the arch-general mailing list. These are the battles that
> have
> > spawned many a linux distro and there is always LFS, even though they
> moved
> > to use udev inside systemd.
> >
> > Myra Nelson
> >
> > To those who I bcc'd this to;
> >
> > I would like to humbly appologize if I intruded on your personal space,
> but
> > I wanted to make sure it would be read by you in your own private space
> > without the need to filter through the BS that's likely to occur on the
> ml.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
> >
>
> That seems to be one of the more well thought out (not pro), responces to
> systemd,
>

Thank you. My intent was to start an intelligent discussion. The rants and
raves are going no where. I'm not necessarily against systemd, just the
PTB's upstream dictating how Linux is and can be used. To me Linux is about
choice, unlike the OS I used for so many years. My other goal is to get the
devs involved to think about how to help the Arch community in general. If
Arch is what you make of it, don't take that choice away.

Yes, Tom, I've backed off a little. I've started reading the systemd
mailing list and although Arch likes to lead the way into the future, I'm
not sure systemd is the future any more than upstart, polkit, consolekit,
gnome3, kde4, ad nauseum. This last line may elicit the wrong responses,
but I hope not. It wasn't meant to slam any one particular idea. Just point
out that:

From Alan Kay:

Simple things should be simple. Complex things should be possible.

Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with millions of
bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but just
done by brute force and thousands of slaves.

We in the Linux community rest on the shoulders of giants all the way down
to Torvalds and GKH. We should act like it.

Myra
--
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
 
Old 08-17-2012, 07:57 AM
Geoff
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500
Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:

<snip>

I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which struck me
with greatest force were in a post from Marti Raudsepp, where he said that an
advantage of systemd is "... less fragmentation between Linux distribution". I
have been full time on linux for nearly 13 years now, with the most recent five
of those on Arch, and for me one of the principal attractions of the OS has
always been fragmentation between distributions. The recent changes to Arch
(and I dare say other distros which I do not monitor), all seem to me to point
in the direction of drab ecumenism - eventually "One distro to rule them
all ...." Sooner or later Arch will be distinguished only by its excellent
rolling release model and the wonderful pacman. Perhaps all this was
inevitable. I do not intend anything I say as a criticism of the devs - it is
their distro and they are entitled to do what they choose with it. But it does
make me sad.

Geoff
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:08 AM
C Anthony Risinger
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Geoff <capsthorne@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500
> Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which struck me
> with greatest force were in a post from Marti Raudsepp, where he said that an
> advantage of systemd is "... less fragmentation between Linux distribution". I
> have been full time on linux for nearly 13 years now, with the most recent five
> of those on Arch, and for me one of the principal attractions of the OS has
> always been fragmentation between distributions. The recent changes to Arch
> (and I dare say other distros which I do not monitor), all seem to me to point
> in the direction of drab ecumenism - eventually "One distro to rule them
> all ...." Sooner or later Arch will be distinguished only by its excellent
> rolling release model and the wonderful pacman. Perhaps all this was
> inevitable. I do not intend anything I say as a criticism of the devs - it is
> their distro and they are entitled to do what they choose with it. But it does
> make me sad.

the boot process isn't really that interesting (once you
know/understand it anyway ... if not i encourage you to explor ;-) --
every distro pretty much does it the same way, but pointlessly
independent, thus resulting in annoying differences that are
completely irrelevant to begin with.

no flexibility is lost by moving to systemd, and really, much more
gained: wider userbase, wider testbase, simple units to write, simple
units to read, loosely coupled ordering, implicit dependencies, Grand
Unified logging capabilities, and of course, much better
speed/reliability/robustness.

take the (unanimous?) sentiments exhibiting by our developers -- and
*many* developers elsewhere, in a great variety of capacities/niches
-- as a sign of the good things to come. i fully expect 99%+ will have
little trouble adjusting, and 98% will at that time agree it was
clearly the right choice.

initiatives like this are not removing choice -- they are
consolidating the common bits so developers can get back to writing
the interesting next-gen stuff instead of spinning wheels or putting
out fires.

like most things in life, balance is key to good health.

--

C Anthony
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:14 AM
mike cloaked
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
> of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't like
> not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a
> mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but I can see the logic in cleaning up the

Thank you for a reasoned posting - one comment here about the issue of
/usr on a separate partition - if you put /usr on a separate partition
and then made a bind mount to / would that not work? I have not tried
it though!

I have been doing this for /home which is a directory /opt/home and
/opt is a separate partition - I then bind mount it to /home as a
directory in the root partition. It has never given a problem so I
wondered if the analogous technique might work for /usr too?

This is a side comment and I am not trying to subvert the main thread
discussion here.

--
mike c
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:15 AM
Leon Feng
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

2012/8/17 Geoff <capsthorne@yahoo.co.uk>:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:22:56 -0500
> Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I agree. I have read all the current threads and the few words which struck me
> with greatest force were in a post from Marti Raudsepp, where he said that an
> advantage of systemd is "... less fragmentation between Linux distribution". I
> have been full time on linux for nearly 13 years now, with the most recent five
> of those on Arch, and for me one of the principal attractions of the OS has
> always been fragmentation between distributions. The recent changes to Arch
> (and I dare say other distros which I do not monitor), all seem to me to point
> in the direction of drab ecumenism - eventually "One distro to rule them
> all ...." Sooner or later Arch will be distinguished only by its excellent
> rolling release model and the wonderful pacman. Perhaps all this was
> inevitable. I do not intend anything I say as a criticism of the devs - it is
> their distro and they are entitled to do what they choose with it. But it does
> make me sad.

Before Ubuntu start upstart, there is simply no choice but sysvinit.
No one complain it will end up to "One distro to rule them all ....".

Leon

>
> Geoff
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:28 AM
Diep Pham Van
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

I used to have seperate /usr partition, previous year, I didn't remember details but
there was a bug that force me to reinstall my sytem without a sperate /usr partition.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:14:58AM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
> > of lib and lib64 to /usr/lib, I'm basically ambivalent. I still don't like
> > not being able to put /usr on a separate partition, I know there's a
> > mkinitcpio hook to cover that, but I can see the logic in cleaning up the
>
> Thank you for a reasoned posting - one comment here about the issue of
> /usr on a separate partition - if you put /usr on a separate partition
> and then made a bind mount to / would that not work? I have not tried
> it though!
>
> I have been doing this for /home which is a directory /opt/home and
> /opt is a separate partition - I then bind mount it to /home as a
> directory in the root partition. It has never given a problem so I
> wondered if the analogous technique might work for /usr too?
>
> This is a side comment and I am not trying to subvert the main thread
> discussion here.
>
> --
> mike c
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:31 AM
mike cloaked
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
> last dev who really paid attention to the list said goodbye. Yet the free
> for all continues. I think a comment on Allan's blog post might illustrate

Here are some stats that are quite useful in terms of the number of
users of systemd:

At http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html

Using the "kernel" tab we see that the approximate number of systems
that have their system details logged using Fedora 16 is over 100,000
if you total the entries for x86_64 and the i686 and i686 PAE kernels
most of which are systems using systemd. Given that so many machines
are currently running systemd it can't be all that bad! This is of
course only for Fedora but machines are also running systemd in other
distributions as well.

Speaks volumes really - and again supports the decision that the devs
have made - with a much larger user base than the straw poll made
available by another poster on this mailing list.

--
mike c
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:47 AM
Thomas Rand
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On 17 August 2012 11:31, mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
>> There has been much ado on the arch-general mailing list about the move to
>> systemd. I participated in part of it, but like others finally tired of
>> "seeing a dead horse kicked" over and over and over. So much so that the
>> last dev who really paid attention to the list said goodbye. Yet the free
>> for all continues. I think a comment on Allan's blog post might illustrate
>
> Here are some stats that are quite useful in terms of the number of
> users of systemd:
>
> At http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html
>
> Using the "kernel" tab we see that the approximate number of systems
> that have their system details logged using Fedora 16 is over 100,000
> if you total the entries for x86_64 and the i686 and i686 PAE kernels
> most of which are systems using systemd. Given that so many machines
> are currently running systemd it can't be all that bad! This is of
> course only for Fedora but machines are also running systemd in other
> distributions as well.
>
> Speaks volumes really - and again supports the decision that the devs
> have made - with a much larger user base than the straw poll made
> available by another poster on this mailing list.
>
> --
> mike c

Thank you for starting a thread that (crosses fingers) will stay rant
free & intelligent.

After reading all the who-har in the other's I decided to install
systemd on my lappy & TBH was very pleased with the result. That being
that the install itself was hassle free & the configuration was
bizarrely intuitive & easy, I had a small issue that
lightdm-unity-greeter was not starting, so I made a note of the error
given & checked the .service, .device, .target files & was astounded
to see seriously plain text to the point where I followed through the
process systemd took & worked out the problem reboot & bingo I fixed
it without even looking on the web!

I still have sysVinit installed & will begin cloning the system prior
to removing sysVinit, one point is that my Arch-laptop has one
partition for the whole OS but when i come to try this on my desktop I
will be facing lots of different drives & partitions which I feel may
also be relatively easy to resolve & get working.

Either way I think I have the same feeling on this as other Archers,
that being that we came to arch to live on the OS edge & take
advantage of what is new in the linux world whilst trying to stick
with the KISS principle. I think systemd is a step forward but the
truth will be in the pudding.

Again thanks for a sane thread

--
Regards
Thomas Rand
 
Old 08-17-2012, 09:48 AM
Jorge Almeida
 
Default Arch Linux and systemd

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM, mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com> wrote:
> most of which are systems using systemd. Given that so many machines
> are currently running systemd it can't be all that bad! This is of
>
How many machines are currently running Windows*?

Jorge Almeida
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:50 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org