• Your Ideal Distro

    From Chris@VERT/DMINE to All on Wed Nov 30 00:42:54 2016
    Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I figured I'd ask just to get an idea.

    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?

    For instance I'm posting this from a laptop running Fedora. Fedora and it's spins tend to focus on a platform consisting of strictly free software when it is installed. Of course you can still install some propietary stuff through repos such as rpmforge and (I THINK) Epel.

    Other distros such as the Ubuntu family among others take the convenience route and find a way to include all the stuff you need including non-free packagess.

    Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.

    In my case I work with RHEL systems, so my home computers (desktop and laptop) are Centos and fedora based. Otherwise I'd probably just be running Ubuntu, Mageia, or Mint.

    Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy war ;-)


    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDP
    The Diamond Mine BBS - telnet://bbs.dmine.net
    The Retro Room - http://forums.delphiforums.com/retroroom ------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online - bbs.dmine.net - Fredericksburg, VA USA
  • From kk4qbn@VERT/KK4QBN to Chris on Wed Nov 30 06:58:44 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Chris to All on Wed Nov 30 2016 12:42 am

    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?

    No, really the way I've went over the years is just "quickest convenience" while I was new to linux bac in the day I ran Zipslack "Slackware on windows partition" just for sheer convenience, because we needed the linux cli environment and easily available networking utils.. found out that did'nt work so well under zipslack, then think we migrated straight to slackware, stayed with it for a while. Then so far FreeBSD was the longest *nix type distro I hung with. I've tried ubuntu pretty much since its conception, the earlier distros were ok, but now, for some reason the seem a little too buggy and bloated to me. So I've dropped back to Debian 8 and so far I love it, sometimes I find myself jumping around to find the stuff I need, but it has been the most stable for me so far, and smoothest running.

    Oh, tried Mint also, it did'nt work out well on either of my laptops either, I could probably say a lot is just me, but it seems with Debian at least I can stick with issues that come up until they are resolved.

    --

    Tim Smith (KK4QBN)
    KK4QBN BBS

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ KK4QBN BBS - (706)422-9538 - kk4qbn.synchro.net, Chatsworth GA US
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to Chris on Wed Nov 30 13:46:26 2016
    On 2016-11-30 07:42 AM, Chris wrote:
    Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I figured I'd
    ask just to get an idea.

    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including
    free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?

    For instance I'm posting this from a laptop running Fedora. Fedora and it's spins tend to focus on a platform consisting of strictly free software when it
    is installed. Of course you can still install some propietary stuff through repos such as rpmforge and (I THINK) Epel.

    Other distros such as the Ubuntu family among others take the convenience route and find a way to include all the stuff you need including non-free packagess.

    Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or
    for more practical reasons.

    In my case I work with RHEL systems, so my home computers (desktop and laptop)
    are Centos and fedora based. Otherwise I'd probably just be running Ubuntu, Mageia, or Mint.

    Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy war ;-)


    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDP
    The Diamond Mine BBS - telnet://bbs.dmine.net
    The Retro Room - http://forums.delphiforums.com/retroroom ------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---
    � Synchronet � Diamond Mine Online - bbs.dmine.net - Fredericksburg, VA USA

    My ideal distro. Well first of all it must have apt-get. Therefore a
    Debian based one is the starting point (you could use apt-get on fedora,
    just compile or run the binary). Then I need something with sudo already setup, so therefore Ubuntu. Then I want something that is fully Free
    Software and/or has a simple desktop environment with nothing shiny -
    Terefore I always come back to good old Trisquel.

    As for my desktop computer (that was my laptop) I would probably have to
    go with something like Ubuntu MATE (Trisquel probably has no free
    drivers for my machine's graphics card and the one in my laptop has
    become a dormant potato due to this I believe, using Intel graphics I
    think or something that makes the graphics card just be generic, like a generic driver). - I will look into what it is.


    For me the best environment is Triskel or MATE for the desktop
    environment. Then I need apt-get and I am set to go. That's what I feel,
    also no rolling release, I don't want things to break. I think some
    packages are outdated in Trisquel, but hey, I don't mind I am fine with it.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Hemo@VERT/UJOINT to Chris on Wed Nov 30 09:19:19 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Chris to All on Wed Nov 30 2016 12:42 am

    Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I figured I'd ask just to get an idea.

    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?

    For instance I'm posting this from a laptop running Fedora. Fedora and it's spins tend to focus on a platform consisting of strictly free software when it is installed. Of course you can still install some propietary stuff through repos such as rpmforge and (I THINK) Epel.

    Other distros such as the Ubuntu family among others take the convenience route and find a way to include all the stuff you need including non-free packagess.

    Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.

    In my case I work with RHEL systems, so my home computers (desktop and laptop) are Centos and fedora based. Otherwise I'd probably just be running Ubuntu, Mageia, or Mint.

    Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy war ;-)


    I am 'trying' to be more practical. I work with RHEL, so I try to stick with CentOS so things I learn in one area can be transferred to another with little translations.

    For years, I used to actually use linux as my main system/desktop, and relied on wine or CrossOver to use programs I could not find suitable linux replacements for.

    I spent a few years on SuSE, which I found very stable but lending little to personal entertainment at the time, and ventured to Red Hat, before it became Fedora. I've used Ubuntu, and have run both Minecraft and TF2 servers with it, but found it became unstable much too easily and moved those to CentOS.

    I have a 'Cobalt Qube' appliance at home that I've been able to load CentOS onto, and have been able to get it to v 5.11.

    What I have found through the years is that most software linux would be used for, is found available for every distro. The method of finding, obtaining, installing (or compiling) is what usually varies. From an admin point, my shells, scripts, and tools work from distro to distro with very little modification other than PATH.

    vi(m) or emacs? I have 'never' used emacs. I use vim on everything. that shit is like whipped cream. -- edlin user

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ - Running madly into the wind and screaming - bbs.ujoint.org
  • From Jazzy_J@VERT/JAYSCAFE to Chris on Wed Nov 30 10:29:00 2016
    Chris wrote to All <=-

    @VIA: VERT/DMINE
    @TZ: 412c
    Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I
    figured I'd ask just to get an idea.

    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards
    just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you
    need?

    I experiment with many, even testing Gentoo from time to time, but because of ease of management and availability, my systems run Ubuntu. Usually the latest LTS release (once I can get them all upgraded.... I've got a webserver that isn't playing nice with 16.04).

    On non-production devices, I generally favor more exotic minimalistic distributions. I collect old hardware and sometimes through Puppy Linux on another minimal distro.

    The cool thing about *nix, is that you have the freedom to choose and modify your environment to fit your needs and likes.

    Jazzy_J
    ... 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ JAYSCAFE2 - jayscafe2.jayctheriot.com
  • From Jagossel@VERT/MTLGEEK to Chris on Wed Nov 30 17:50:03 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Chris to All on Wed Nov 30 2016 00:42:54

    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just includi
    ng
    free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?

    Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal
    or
    for more practical reasons.

    Perosnally, I have been just out searching the right distro that I feel comfortable with. I preferred to have some form of package management (don't really care what kind [rpm, deb, etc.]), and to have the latest software.

    I prefer to use open source software whenever I can. If there isn't one, and if I absolutely need it, then I will get closed source (although, that's rare now-a-days).

    I will admit that Arch Linux has fit this bill very nicely: allowing me to pick and choose what software to install and the user-supported repository has a lot of packages available to where I hardly need to download archived files and build from source.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -
  • From alliekbean@VERT/MBL to Chris on Wed Nov 30 17:17:47 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Chris to All on Wed Nov 30 2016 00:42:54

    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?

    I run Arch on my systems at home. I love the rolling release model, and I like that the focus is primarily on doing things manually and understanding what it is you're trying to accomplish, all while having a very nice, robust base system. Then there's AUR, which makes building packages yourself extremely easy when the official repositories don't have something you want.

    At work, we use RHEL, primarily because it has commercial support and significant security features like SELinux. I like it and I'm quite experienced managing it, but when you're used to rolling releases, enterprise Linux distributions are soooooo out of date.

    -- alliekbean

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ -*= moonboot labs =*- telnet://bbs.moonbootlabs.net :: Panama City Beach, FL
  • From Poindexter Fortran@VERT/REALITY to Deavmi on Wed Nov 30 17:26:46 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Deavmi to Chris on Wed Nov 30 2016 01:46 pm

    I don't want things to break. I think some
    packages are outdated in Trisquel, but hey, I don't mind I am fine with it.

    Hey, I'm still running 14.04 LTS on my systems - works just fine. :)

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to Chris on Thu Dec 1 07:39:38 2016
    Hello Chris,

    On 30 Nov 16 00:42, Chris wrote to All:

    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you
    aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you
    go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the
    stuff you need?

    I didn't really notice the "free software" thing until I gave Debian a try. They seem to be the people promoting it more than others I've used. I've used Iceweasel and it compares to Firefox just fine. I'm just used to what I've used
    for years.

    For instance I'm posting this from a laptop running Fedora. Fedora and it's spins tend to focus on a platform consisting of strictly free software when it is installed. Of course you can still install some propietary stuff through repos such as rpmforge and (I THINK) Epel.

    I honestly never even tried Fedora. I was warned early on (15ish years ago) about the RPM package management system and never really bothered. I'm sure it's light years better now, but just haven't had the need to try it out.

    Other distros such as the Ubuntu family among others take the
    convenience route and find a way to include all the stuff you need including non-free packagess.

    Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.

    I used Gentoo for about 10 years, and I probably would have jumped ship a lot earlier but once you get to know something, and know it well.. you tend to stick with it (or always go back to it). All around the time Daniel Robbins left, it seemed like more and more packages were breaking (then again I was running the unstable arch), and I was just generally getting sick and tired of compiling everything. I had an older Athlon64 3700+ that took a good 6 hours to
    compile a gcc update. That got a little ridiculous so I started playing around with other distros.

    I took some time to try out a bunch of full fledged desktop environmental distros like (K/X/L)Ubuntu, Mint, SuSE, and whatever else was popular at the time, but really only needed a nice and easy build-your-own minimal system for the BBS and it's playmates.. so I ended up tinkering around quite a bit with Archlinux in VMs before finally deciding to fully install it on my real hardware. After that, the rest is history. Now I have moved from that Athlon64 to two Pi3's running ArchlinuxARM (the second serves as our in-house media server), and haven't had a single complaint yet.

    If I were to actually use a full desktop environment with all the bells and whistles, I'd probably either build one with Archlinux (to stick with what I'm used to now), or just go with Linux Mint (seems to be the cleanest and smoothest, and very easy to install and have up and running).

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From jordanjm@VERT/COLOSSUS to Chris on Thu Dec 1 08:21:00 2016
    I started on Redhat before they killed their desktop distro. Then over time
    I became enamored of the Debian way of installing and maintaining software. Now my preference is Arch. I've used all the major types (Redhat, Debian)
    plus arch. I have not yet done gentoo, or Linux from scratch, but I like
    Arch the best.
  • From Ayex@VERT/BYTEXCHG to Accession on Thu Dec 1 11:10:09 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Accession to Chris on Thu Dec 01 2016 07:39 am

    I honestly never even tried Fedora. I was warned early on (15ish years ago) about the RPM package management system and never really bothered. I'm sure it's light years better now, but just haven't had the need to try

    RPM packet management is a joke.

    APT is far superior. But, i guess its all what you like. I'm an ubuntu fan.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ -=-The ByteXchange BBS | bbs.thebytexchange.com:8888 --=-
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to Ayex on Thu Dec 1 13:20:22 2016
    Hello Ayex,

    On 01 Dec 16 11:10, Ayex wrote to Accession:

    I honestly never even tried Fedora. I was warned early on (15ish
    years ago) about the RPM package management system and never
    really bothered. I'm sure it's light years better now, but just
    haven't had the need to try

    RPM packet management is a joke.

    Compared to what, DEB?

    Can you explain some details? What does it do differently than DEB packaging? I
    mean, I can't see how it could possibly be THAT bad especially when there are others out there to compare to (in the devs perspective, that is).

    I seem to recall back when I was told to steer clear of it (some 15 years ago now), RPM based package managers wouldn't pull in the proper dependencies and/or bloat them with a ton of them. Then again, even if it wasn't true at the
    time, I could have been told that by someone who was biased towards something else. *shrug*

    APT is far superior. But, i guess its all what you like. I'm an ubuntu fan.

    How so? I haven't used it in awhile, so I'd like to know how it's far superior to say Yum, Yast, or Pacman? And why would the Linux Mint maintainers create their own (Synaptic) package manager if apt was so good?

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to Poindexter Fortran on Thu Dec 1 21:06:42 2016
    On 2016-12-01 03:26 AM, Poindexter Fortran wrote:
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Deavmi to Chris on Wed Nov 30 2016 01:46 pm

    I don't want things to break. I think some
    packages are outdated in Trisquel, but hey, I don't mind I am fine with it.

    Hey, I'm still running 14.04 LTS on my systems - works just fine. :)

    ---
    � Synchronet � realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

    You running Ubuntu? Trisquel uses different repositories, doesn't use
    Ubuntu's at all.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Jagossel@VERT/MTLGEEK to jordanjm on Thu Dec 1 21:14:24 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: jordanjm to Chris on Thu Dec 01 2016 08:21:00

    Now my preference is Arch. I've used all the major types (Redhat, Debian) plus arch. I have not yet done gentoo, or Linux from scratch, but I like Arch the best.

    Linux from Scratch? Man, I feel like it's the ultimate way to build a custom Linux system. I've tried to read the book; from what I have read, it seems like it will take a lot of time just to even get a basic system going.

    Don't get me wrong, I would love to get a chance to see if I can handle setting up a Linux from Scratch system, I just have the time for it now.

    -jag

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ MtlGeek - Geeks in Montreal - http://mtlgeek.com/ -
  • From Chris@VERT/DMINE to Deavmi on Thu Dec 1 22:18:25 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Deavmi to Chris on Wed Nov 30 2016 01:46 pm

    My ideal distro. Well first of all it must have apt-get. Therefore a
    Debian based one is the starting point (you could use apt-get on fedora,

    You bring up a good point in that the deciding factor for a lot of people is the package manager. I needed something Redhat related since it's what I work with, and by extension needed to get myself used to yum/dnf as well as the rpm utilities. I actually have no personal preference for either as they've both matured enough over the years where I don't think one has a huge leg up on the other except in that user's tend to be more familiar with one over the other.

    Before going the Centos route I was using Mandrake/Mandriva/Mageia as my primary desktop OS. I still love Mageia (at least up to version 4, haven't booted up v.5 yet). I often recommend it for people looking for a friendly desktop OS. But I really wanted something that aligned with RHEL as much as possible and you can't go any closer than Centos. I've been hoping to learn SELinux at some point and I couldn't do that with Mageia because they have their own, different security package.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDP
    The Diamond Mine BBS - telnet://bbs.dmine.net
    The Retro Room - http://forums.delphiforums.com/retroroom ------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online - bbs.dmine.net - Fredericksburg, VA USA
  • From Chris@VERT/DMINE to Hemo on Thu Dec 1 22:37:54 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Hemo to Chris on Wed Nov 30 2016 09:19 am


    I am 'trying' to be more practical. I work with RHEL, so I try to stick wit CentOS so things I learn in one area can be transferred to another with litt translations.

    For years, I used to actually use linux as my main system/desktop, and relie on wine or CrossOver to use programs I could not find suitable linux replacements for.

    My primary desktop is actually Centos. Since it's geared more to the server side and is not cutting edge in terms of packages, it isn't nearly as sexy looking as some of the darlings for the desktop (Ubuntu, Mint, etc). But I'm using it with KDE and it looks surprisingly good (considering they are more Gnome centric by default).

    vi(m) or emacs? I have 'never' used emacs. I use vim on everything. that s is like whipped cream. -- edlin user

    I find myself using both these days. Vi/VIM I tend to use for quick-hitters and smaller docs or for reading (with 'view'). Emacs I tend to use for bigger documents, longer sessions for some reason. Realistically you can use either for both, but I'm just odd like that.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDP
    The Diamond Mine BBS - telnet://bbs.dmine.net
    The Retro Room - http://forums.delphiforums.com/retroroom ------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online - bbs.dmine.net - Fredericksburg, VA USA
  • From Chris@VERT/DMINE to Jazzy_J on Thu Dec 1 22:45:13 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Jazzy_J to Chris on Wed Nov 30 2016 10:29 am

    I experiment with many, even testing Gentoo from time to time, but because o ease of management and availability, my systems run Ubuntu. Usually the lat LTS release (once I can get them all upgraded.... I've got a webserver that isn't playing nice with 16.04).

    I love the fact the Ubuntu has an LTS and wish more distros did that. Being a Fedora user, the one thing I've come to terms with is the fact that they will never do an LTS simply because of the nature of the distro. It's designed for constant releases (every 6 months or so). I like it, but I wouldn't recommend it for newcomers. Not because it's unstable (it isn't) but because after a few months they're going to be told to upgrade it. Fortunately the Fedora people are making it a little easier. But for new users I would recommend something like Ubuntu that you can install and let sit for a few years before having to do another reinstall (applying patch updates along the way of course).


    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDP
    The Diamond Mine BBS - telnet://bbs.dmine.net
    The Retro Room - http://forums.delphiforums.com/retroroom ------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online - bbs.dmine.net - Fredericksburg, VA USA
  • From Chris@VERT/DMINE to Accession on Thu Dec 1 22:56:44 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Accession to Chris on Thu Dec 01 2016 07:39 am

    I honestly never even tried Fedora. I was warned early on (15ish years ago) about the RPM package management system and never really bothered. I'm sure it's light years better now, but just haven't had the need to try it out.

    The rpm stuff is old news. It used to be that in the early days of rpm management, there were a lot of dependency issues. The .deb packages had less issues and a lot of people swore by them at the time because of the dependency hell (which I feel like probably got overstated at times).

    Today rpm's are fine. I use rpm/yum management all the time and rarely have issues with it. Admittedly I only have limited experience using deb/apt distros, but in this day and age I don't see either having a substantial advantage over the other except in the biases of the users who swear by them.

    To summarize, when evaluating distros, package manager really shouldn't have to be a consideration anymore, unless there is a specific need for it. For instance, one of the reasons I went with Centos/Fedora was to familiarize myself with the rpm/yum/dnf commands. It's a practical need, but otherwise not a preference on my part.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    CDP
    The Diamond Mine BBS - telnet://bbs.dmine.net
    The Retro Room - http://forums.delphiforums.com/retroroom ------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online - bbs.dmine.net - Fredericksburg, VA USA
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to Chris on Fri Dec 2 19:23:00 2016
    Chris wrote to Jazzy_J <=-

    I love the fact the Ubuntu has an LTS and wish more distros did that. Being a Fedora user, the one thing I've come to terms with is the fact that they will never do an LTS simply because of the nature of the
    distro. It's designed for constant releases (every 6 months or so). I
    like it, but I wouldn't recommend it for newcomers. Not because it's unstable (it isn't) but because after a few months they're going to be

    That's the main reason I don't run Fedora. As a distro, it's rock solid (or was when I ran it), but the need for constant upgrades was a pain. Something with LTS (like Ubuntu or Debian) is more my style.


    ... Boy, I'm tellin you fer yer own good, I studied them things.
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to Chris on Fri Dec 2 07:38:56 2016
    Hello Chris,

    On 01 Dec 16 22:56, Chris wrote to Accession:

    The rpm stuff is old news. It used to be that in the early days of rpm management, there were a lot of dependency issues. The .deb packages
    had less issues and a lot of people swore by them at the time because
    of the dependency hell (which I feel like probably got overstated at times).

    That's kinda what I figured. And I'm sure when I originall heard about all of that, it was by an already biased person, so they most likely dramatized it a lot worse than it actually was.

    Either way, instead.. they turned me on to Gentoo (I know, right!?!). It was a great learning platform for sure, but now I don't want the hassle or the compile times on normal packages you can get out of a package manager.

    Today rpm's are fine. I use rpm/yum management all the time and rarely have issues with it. Admittedly I only have limited experience using deb/apt distros, but in this day and age I don't see either having a substantial advantage over the other except in the biases of the users
    who swear by them.

    "In this day and age" is the key there. With all the competition (or "choice", however you want to refer to it) out there, there really can't be much difference in any of them. There's still plenty of people using every distro out there, including new ones that comes out of the woodwork (which are usually
    just based off something more major, but slimmed down for specific tasks). The oldschool RHEL guys seem to stick with the CentOS and Fedora stuff, and the oldschool Debian people tend to stick with what they like. I'm sure if I actually cared enough to try, I could get used to any one of them.

    To summarize, when evaluating distros, package manager really
    shouldn't have to be a consideration anymore, unless there is a
    specific need for it. For instance, one of the reasons I went with Centos/Fedora was to familiarize myself with the rpm/yum/dnf commands. It's a practical need, but otherwise not a preference on my part.

    Agreed. My main thing is I don't like starting with everything pre-installed. I
    like to start with a base system and build it into what I want. Gentoo was great for that, including optimizing as you went. But that got old after awhile. It shouldn't take you more than an hour to have a base system installed
    (Gentoo would sometimes takes days - what with going to work and whatever else in between compiles).

    That's why I like Archlinux. You start out setting up your base system, and go from there.. all while packages install quickly. I suppose Debian would be much
    the same, I just like to check out the latest software. Even Debian's most unstable repositories tend to not have the latest and greatest software most of
    the rolling distributions have (which I don't blame Debian whatsoever, since that's what their goal is from the start).

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Poindexter Fortran@VERT/REALITY to Deavmi on Fri Dec 2 09:15:10 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Deavmi to Poindexter Fortran on Thu Dec 01 2016 09:06 pm

    You running Ubuntu? Trisquel uses different repositories, doesn't use Ubuntu's at all.

    I'm running Ubuntu, my point was that you don't need to necessarily be on the latest and greatest of anything as long as your distro is keeping up with security patches.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to Poindexter Fortran on Sat Dec 3 10:35:44 2016
    On 2016-12-02 07:15 PM, Poindexter Fortran wrote:
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Deavmi to Poindexter Fortran on Thu Dec 01 2016 09:06 pm

    You running Ubuntu? Trisquel uses different repositories, doesn't use Ubuntu's at all.

    I'm running Ubuntu, my point was that you don't need to necessarily be on the latest and greatest of anything as long as your distro is keeping up with security patches.

    ---
    � Synchronet � realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

    Good point. I agree.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Sampsa@VERT/B4BBS to Deavmi on Sat Dec 3 16:17:00 2016
    Deavmi wrote to Poindexter Fortran <=-

    @VIA: VERT/EWBBS
    @MSGID: <584283E6.1770.dove-nix@ewbbs.synchro.net>
    @REPLY: <5841AC1E.1732.dove.dove-nix@realitycheckbbs.org>
    @TZ: 0078
    On 2016-12-02 07:15 PM, Poindexter Fortran wrote:
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Deavmi to Poindexter Fortran on Thu Dec 01 2016 09:06 pm

    You running Ubuntu? Trisquel uses different repositories, doesn't use Ubuntu's at all.

    I'm running Ubuntu, my point was that you don't need to necessarily be on
    the
    latest and greatest of anything as long as your distro is keeping up with security patches.

    ---
    n.' Synchronet n.' realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

    Good point. I agree.

    Yup, if you pick an LTS version you get backported security updates and
    other goodies for quite a long time, so no need to run the latest and "greatest" (I only run 16.04 on boxes that I want a ZFS tank, my other boxes are staying on 14.04 LTS for as long as possible to avoid the clusterfuck
    that is systemd)..

    My main reasons for using Ubuntu:

    1. I prefer apt/.deb based distros to rpm based ones - I run one CentOS VM
    but that's for work purposes because the app I work with is designed to
    run on either HPUX, Windows or RHEL. But I've had so many more problems
    with yum compared to say aptitude that I just prefer .deb based distros.

    2. A lot of other people use Ubuntu. Why is that a big deal? Well if you
    run into an issue, usually a "How do I <something> on Ubuntu [possibly
    version]" Google search gets me the answer.

    3. I've used some form of Ubuntu since like 2004 as it seemed to be
    "Debian without the pain". Though I have to say that modern Debian
    installers are pretty smooth - I just installed Debian/s390x on an
    IBM mainframe emulator because I want to run a BBS on a mainframe,
    damn it.

    However I only use Ubuntu as a server OS (I do usually install something like Xubuntu or Lubuntu and then run those in a VNC server because a GUI is useful for some things [e.g. now that your Ethernet devices are called en29sppa11foo or something, screw using the the /etc/network/interfaces method, I'll just
    use the GUI for NetworkManager because this shit gets seemingly more complex
    by the release]).

    I keep a couple of local Ubuntu VMs around in case I need to run some bit of code that won't compile on OS X, but that's about the limit of my "desktop" Linux use or as test environments for Python (write the code in an editor
    on OS X and save it to a shared drive, Cmd-Tab to VMware and test it).

    Most of the Python code I write is for servers so it HAS to run well on
    Linux, but I prefer OS X editors / source code control tools (GitBox).

    The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my primary GUI
    and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools, documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from my cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and frankly at the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there, slowly.

    Sampsa

    PS: I wrote this whole message in Emacs on my OS X box, check out the screenshot at http://sampsa.com/osxemacs.png

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to Sampsa on Sat Dec 3 10:33:54 2016
    Hello Sampsa,

    On 03 Dec 16 16:17, Sampsa wrote to Deavmi:

    Yup, if you pick an LTS version you get backported security updates
    and other goodies for quite a long time, so no need to run the latest
    and "greatest" (I only run 16.04 on boxes that I want a ZFS tank, my
    other boxes are staying on 14.04 LTS for as long as possible to avoid
    the clusterfuck that is systemd)..

    Can you explain to me why you think systemd is a clusterfuck? I've been using it since Archlinux switched over to it, and haven't had any problems with it whatsoever. It was a learning process coming from sysvinit, but now that I kinda know what I'm doing with it, almost seems easier now.

    The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my primary
    GUI and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools,
    documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from my
    cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and frankly at
    the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there, slowly.

    We differ a lot there, too. I can't stand OSX and the fact that they dumbed it down more than M$ did with Windows. At least you can get more control when you open an XTerm though, I suppose.

    PS: I wrote this whole message in Emacs on my OS X box, check out the screenshot at http://sampsa.com/osxemacs.png

    Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch.. I'll take
    vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Meh@VERT/NIMBUS to Deavmi on Sat Dec 3 14:44:31 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Deavmi to Poindexter Fortran on Sat Dec 03 2016 10:35 am

    I'm running Ubuntu, my point was that you don't need to necessarily be on latest and greatest of anything as long as your distro is keeping up with security patches.

    I dualboot Win7 and Peppermint OS(Linux). Peppermint is very light on resources and fast. It's a Mint/Ubuntu hybrid.
    Ralph Smole,Sysop.
    The Nimbus BBS
    Briar,TX

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Nimbus BBS - nimbus.synchro.net
  • From Sampsa@VERT/B4BBS to Accession on Sun Dec 4 02:19:00 2016
    Accession wrote to Sampsa <=-

    @VIA: VERT/PHARCYDE
    @MSGID: <5842FFF5.53.dove-nix@pharcyde.org>
    @TZ: 4168
    Hello Sampsa,

    On 03 Dec 16 16:17, Sampsa wrote to Deavmi:

    Yup, if you pick an LTS version you get backported security updates
    and other goodies for quite a long time, so no need to run the latest
    and "greatest" (I only run 16.04 on boxes that I want a ZFS tank, my
    other boxes are staying on 14.04 LTS for as long as possible to avoid
    the clusterfuck that is systemd)..

    Can you explain to me why you think systemd is a clusterfuck? I've been using it since Archlinux switched over to it, and haven't had any
    problems with it whatsoever. It was a learning process coming from sysvinit, but now that I kinda know what I'm doing with it, almost
    seems easier now.

    It's a solution in search of a problem, an overengineered pile of crap
    that was totally unnecessary and pointless.

    Also, this:

    "Systemd flies in the face of the Unix philosophy: 'do one thing and do it well,' representing a complex collection of dozens of tightly coupled
    binaries. Its responsibilities grossly exceed that of an init system, as
    it goes on to handle power management, device management, mount points,
    cron, disk encryption, socket API/inetd, syslog, network configuration, login/session management, readahead, GPT partition discovery, container registration, hostname/locale/time management, and other things.

    Keep it simple, stupid.âÇ¥ [Unattributed]

    It's just not How Things Should Be Done - there's an old joke that those
    who do not understand UNIX are bound to re-implemement it, poorly. That
    is exactly what is happening here.

    Yeah it's here to stay and as soon as I can I'll be slowly migrating my
    stuff off of Linux as soon as is feasible.

    Also have you ever tried to modify what a runlevel, sorry "target" does?

    Edit a service file?

    It's an enormous pain in the ass. Also, what POSSIBLE benefit comes from
    the "predictable naming of devices" (i.e. wtf was wrong with eth0?) which
    is actually entirely non-deterministic - on Debian/s390x systemd
    decides to rename my BLOCK DEVICES on random occasions (which is nuts
    - on IBM mainframes the block devices are NUMBERED, so it's pretty easy
    to go from 120, 121, 122 etc to /dev/dasda, /dev/dasdb etc. But nope now
    it's totally f'ing random).

    I'm not alone in this, the old-skool Linux greybeards like Slackware have decided to say f**k off to Poettering's Empire of Shite.


    The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my primary
    GUI and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools,
    documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from my
    cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and frankly at
    the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there, slowly.

    We differ a lot there, too. I can't stand OSX and the fact that they dumbed it down more than M$ did with Windows. At least you can get more control when you open an XTerm though, I suppose.

    They made some of it more accesible for n00bs but they took nothing away
    from the same people who have been using it as a great UNIX development platform for decades.

    What exact features did I lose in the last 2-3 upgrades? Or is ease-of-use somehow anti-thetical to a good OS?

    I thought Linux fans were all about choice (except in init systems, that
    needs to be crammed down everyones throats by making desktop environments
    be dependent on what init system you're using lol).

    I actually feel kinda sad - I was a huge fan and evangelizer of Linux since
    the early 90s but the way the community is going and the people in it now frankly put me off - esp. this whole pointless hatred of Apple (who provide
    a shitload stuff back to the F/OSS community, e.g. WebKit and LLVM) and MSFT.

    It's getting boring and almost embarrassing to be honest.


    Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch..
    I'll take vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)

    Nah, this is my BBSing terminal theme - I actually find bright green over
    black quite easiest of the "something on black" to read but for real editing
    I go with beige backgroud.

    Also nano over emacs? O..K.. - vim I get but NANO? For actual editing of anything more than a quick config file change? Christ. TBH, I do use it especially on slower systems (like the aforementioned Debian/s390x system,
    it runs on an emulator with roughly the processing power of a P133 but with
    4 cores and 4 GB of RAM) but even then I prefer "joe" - far more functionality.

    The reason I put up the screenshot was to show that not all OS X users are sitting around in Adobe Illustrator or something - this is still a good system for people who like a nice, stable UNIX with a good UI.

    PS: If I wanted to emulate an olschool green screen monitor I'd use cathode, check out http://i66.tinypic.com/20p3zm.png

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to Accession on Sun Dec 4 11:46:31 2016
    On 2016-12-03 06:33 PM, Accession wrote:
    Hello Sampsa,

    On 03 Dec 16 16:17, Sampsa wrote to Deavmi:

    Yup, if you pick an LTS version you get backported security updates
    and other goodies for quite a long time, so no need to run the latest and "greatest" (I only run 16.04 on boxes that I want a ZFS tank, my other boxes are staying on 14.04 LTS for as long as possible to avoid the clusterfuck that is systemd)..

    Can you explain to me why you think systemd is a clusterfuck? I've been using it since Archlinux switched over to it, and haven't had any problems with it whatsoever. It was a learning process coming from sysvinit, but now that I kinda know what I'm doing with it, almost seems easier now.

    The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my primary
    GUI and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools,
    documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from my
    cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and frankly at the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there, slowly.

    We differ a lot there, too. I can't stand OSX and the fact that they dumbed it
    down more than M$ did with Windows. At least you can get more control when you
    open an XTerm though, I suppose.

    PS: I wrote this whole message in Emacs on my OS X box, check out the screenshot at http://sampsa.com/osxemacs.png

    Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch.. I'll take
    vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    � Synchronet � thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

    Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Sampsa@VERT/B4BBS to Deavmi on Sun Dec 4 13:46:00 2016
    Deavmi wrote to Accession <=-


    vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)

    Yeah I do use nano for quick and dirty edits but for actual real editing
    work I use something like Smultron 6 with a beige background and black
    text.

    Also HUGE fonts - I hate squinting, especially when reading / writing
    Arabic..

    Sampsa

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)
  • From Tony@VERT/FRIENDS to Accession on Sun Dec 4 12:49:00 2016
    Deavmi wrote to Accession <=-

    Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.

    My prefered is VI/VIM unfortunately nano is not included by default in new installations and for my job I need to install and manage remote servers where I am 100% vi is there...but nano is a good tool as well.

    Thanks

    Tony

    ... Computer Hacker wanted. Must have own axe.
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ .:: Friends BBS ::.:: London ::.
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to Sampsa on Sun Dec 4 10:04:36 2016
    Hello Sampsa,

    On 04 Dec 16 02:19, Sampsa wrote to Accession:

    Can you explain to me why you think systemd is a clusterfuck?
    I've been using it since Archlinux switched over to it, and
    haven't had any problems with it whatsoever. It was a learning
    process coming from sysvinit, but now that I kinda know what I'm
    doing with it, almost seems easier now.

    It's a solution in search of a problem, an overengineered pile of crap that was totally unnecessary and pointless.

    I don't see any issue with it whatsoever. Everything seems to work quite smoothly together in unison.

    Also, this:

    I wanted an honest opinion, not something quoted from a biased website.

    Yeah it's here to stay and as soon as I can I'll be slowly migrating
    my stuff off of Linux as soon as is feasible.

    Sorry to hear that.

    Also have you ever tried to modify what a runlevel, sorry "target"
    does?

    Edit a service file?

    Sure. I have my entire BBS running on ArchlinuxARM, where I created my own service files for multiple things that I wanted to run at boot. As I stated, once I figured how how it works.. it was surprisingly easy.

    It's an enormous pain in the ass. Also, what POSSIBLE benefit comes
    from the "predictable naming of devices" (i.e. wtf was wrong with
    eth0?) which is actually entirely non-deterministic - on Debian/s390x systemd decides to rename my BLOCK DEVICES on random occasions (which
    is nuts - on IBM mainframes the block devices are NUMBERED, so it's
    pretty easy to go from 120, 121, 122 etc to /dev/dasda, /dev/dasdb
    etc. But nope now it's totally f'ing random).

    I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi 3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86 machine it was renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from that. So I'm unsure as to where the "totally f'ing random" is coming from.

    I'm not alone in this, the old-skool Linux greybeards like Slackware
    have decided to say f**k off to Poettering's Empire of Shite.

    I enjoy moving forward with the times, and I definitely wouldn't keep a grey beard (or neckbeard, for that matter).

    The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my
    primary GUI and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools,
    documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from
    my cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and
    frankly at the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are
    as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there,
    slowly.

    This is a better explanation of your own opinion than the web paste you did above (I didn't bother quoting someone else's words). So you're stuck in your old ways, which is completely understandable.

    I thought Linux fans were all about choice (except in init systems,
    that needs to be crammed down everyones throats by making desktop environments be dependent on what init system you're using lol).

    There is and was no cramming anything down anyone's throats. In every single Linux distro out there, you still have a choice to NOT use systemd, and continue to use sysvinit if you want to. I know a few people that decided to stick with sysvinit, which is fine. If they're more comfortable using it, by all means keep on keeping on. However, the fact that the majority of Linux distributions are moving to systemd seems to show that the sysvinit fans are definitely in the minority.

    I actually feel kinda sad - I was a huge fan and evangelizer of Linux since the early 90s but the way the community is going and the people
    in it now frankly put me off - esp. this whole pointless hatred of
    Apple (who provide a shitload stuff back to the F/OSS community, e.g. WebKit and LLVM) and MSFT.

    I don't hate Apple. I just think it's overpriced, so I choose not to buy it. I can accomplish the exact same tasks on cheaper non-Apple machine, so I choose to go that route.

    Also nano over emacs? O..K.. - vim I get but NANO? For actual editing
    of anything more than a quick config file change? Christ. TBH, I do
    use it especially on slower systems (like the aforementioned
    Debian/s390x system, it runs on an emulator with roughly the
    processing power of a P133 but with 4 cores and 4 GB of RAM) but even
    then I prefer "joe" - far more functionality.

    What exactly do us sysops do the most of? Yeah, quick config file changes, and nano definitely comes in handy there. Kinda like your greybeard situation, I've
    used it for quite some time and am comfortable with it's ease of use and not much else getting in the way.

    Other than that, I'm using vim to write this reply to you. I'm in a GUI-less environment and these two editors supply me with everything I need for the tasks at hand.

    The reason I put up the screenshot was to show that not all OS X users
    are sitting around in Adobe Illustrator or something - this is still a good system for people who like a nice, stable UNIX with a good UI.

    I'm a total fan of the unix, but not so much the UI. I would much rather run FreeBSD without OSX. However, I'm not really completely sold on any *nix desktop environments these days. I recently installed MATE on my other RasPi3 that hosts my media server, only because it's one of the most lightweight, non-ugly, yet fairly full featured UIs I could find that ran fast and snappy on
    the Pi (Gnome ran about as fast as a turtle, boy they really bloated that up in
    the last few years). Other than that, I do most of my Linux'ing in CLI environments.

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to Deavmi on Sun Dec 4 10:33:12 2016
    Hello Deavmi,

    On 04 Dec 16 11:46, Deavmi wrote to Accession:

    Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor?
    Blecch.. I'll take vim or nano with black background and white text
    any day. :)

    Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.

    Yep. I also use vim the same way. Then again, that's default for both in a CLI environment, so it's all relative to what I'm used to anyways. YMMV.

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Sampsa@VERT/B4BBS to Accession on Sun Dec 4 20:49:00 2016
    Accession wrote to Sampsa <=-

    It's an enormous pain in the ass. Also, what POSSIBLE benefit comes
    from the "predictable naming of devices" (i.e. wtf was wrong with
    eth0?) which is actually entirely non-deterministic - on Debian/s390x systemd decides to rename my BLOCK DEVICES on random occasions (which
    is nuts - on IBM mainframes the block devices are NUMBERED, so it's
    pretty easy to go from 120, 121, 122 etc to /dev/dasda, /dev/dasdb
    etc. But nope now it's totally f'ing random).

    I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi 3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86 machine it was
    renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from that. So I'm unsure as
    to where the "totally f'ing random" is coming from.

    So I have four DASD devices, 0120, 0121, 0130 and 0131.

    Every couple of boots, the /dev/dasd name given to 0121 and 0130 is swapped around. So that's totally fucking random behaviour to me.


    I'm not alone in this, the old-skool Linux greybeards like Slackware
    have decided to say f**k off to Poettering's Empire of Shite.

    I enjoy moving forward with the times, and I definitely wouldn't keep a grey beard (or neckbeard, for that matter).

    Yeah, I mean modularity, small tools that do things well, all that boring UNIX philosophy should just be shitcanned because change, man!



    This is a better explanation of your own opinion than the web paste you did above (I didn't bother quoting someone else's words). So you're
    stuck in your old ways, which is completely understandable.

    I'm stuck in my own ways is a fairly condescending way of putting it:

    I've found an optimal toolset for the work I do and keep using it is how I'd put it.

    Sa> I actually feel kinda sad - I was a huge fan and evangelizer of Linux
    since the early 90s but the way the community is going and the people
    in it now frankly put me off - esp. this whole pointless hatred of
    Apple (who provide a shitload stuff back to the F/OSS community, e.g. WebKit and LLVM) and MSFT.

    I don't hate Apple. I just think it's overpriced, so I choose not to
    buy it. I can accomplish the exact same tasks on cheaper non-Apple machine, so I choose to go that route.

    Your tasks are clearly different from mine which is fine. For me, OS X
    is the optimal OS though I am getting less and less pleased with the
    hardware they're putting out (but then again unlike Windows OS X doesn't
    come with any significant more bloat each release so my 2011 MacBookPro 17" runs just fine [with a 2TB SSD system disk and 16 GB of RAM, which I shock horror managed to install ALL BY MYSELF!].


    I'm a total fan of the unix, but not so much the UI. I would much
    rather run FreeBSD without OSX. However, I'm not really completely sold
    on any *nix desktop environments these days. I recently installed MATE
    on my other RasPi3 that hosts my media server, only because it's one of the most lightweight, non-ugly, yet fairly full featured UIs I could
    find that ran fast and snappy on the Pi (Gnome ran about as fast as a turtle, boy they really bloated that up in the last few years). Other
    than that, I do most of my Linux'ing in CLI environments.

    What do you actually do - software development, systems administration or
    just a hobbyist?

    Sampsa


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to Sampsa on Sun Dec 4 18:19:07 2016
    Sampsa wrote:
    Deavmi wrote to Accession <=-


    > vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)

    Yeah I do use nano for quick and dirty edits but for actual real editing
    work I use something like Smultron 6 with a beige background and black
    text.

    Also HUGE fonts - I hate squinting, especially when reading / writing Arabic..

    Sampsa

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    � Synchronet � B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)

    I use nano only. I also use big text. I just do the Ctrl and Shift and +
    and the Ctrl and - whnever I need it.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to Sampsa on Sun Dec 4 19:53:06 2016
    Hello Sampsa,

    On 04 Dec 16 20:49, Sampsa wrote to Accession:

    I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi
    3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86
    machine it was renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from
    that. So I'm unsure as to where the "totally f'ing random" is
    coming from.

    So I have four DASD devices, 0120, 0121, 0130 and 0131.

    Every couple of boots, the /dev/dasd name given to 0121 and 0130 is swapped around. So that's totally fucking random behaviour to me.

    I've never seen this activity before. Then again, I don't have DASD devices, either. Maybe it's specific to your devices and/or your configuration?

    Yeah, I mean modularity, small tools that do things well, all that
    boring UNIX philosophy should just be shitcanned because change, man!

    No one ever said that, but rant on muh brutha!

    I'm stuck in my own ways is a fairly condescending way of putting it:

    I've found an optimal toolset for the work I do and keep using it is
    how I'd put it.

    Not sure how that's condescending, as it's damn near the exact same meaning, just different words.

    Your tasks are clearly different from mine which is fine. For me, OS X

    Clearly.

    is the optimal OS though I am getting less and less pleased with the hardware they're putting out (but then again unlike Windows OS X
    doesn't come with any significant more bloat each release so my 2011 MacBookPro 17" runs just fine [with a 2TB SSD system disk and 16 GB of RAM, which I shock horror managed to install ALL BY MYSELF!].

    I'm surprised AppleCorp even made it possible for you to do that all by yourself.

    What do you actually do - software development, systems administration
    or just a hobbyist?

    I would say a bit of all three probably, with emphasis on the hobbyist part. I'll try and/or use the best fit for the task at hand. I'm a bit of a PC gamer as well, so I also have a Win10 machine for Call of Duty, Battlefield 1, The Division, and soon the new Mass Effect that's coming out in spring of 2017.

    If companies like Activision, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Bioware, and whatever else would contribute their games to the Linux world, I wouldn't have a need for Windows whatsoever. But they don't, so I keep it around for what I need it for. *shrug*

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Jazzy_J@VERT/JAYSCAFE to Accession on Sun Dec 4 18:31:00 2016
    Accession wrote to Ayex <=-
    Compared to what, DEB?

    Can you explain some details? What does it do differently than DEB packaging? I mean, I can't see how it could possibly be THAT bad especially when there are others out there to compare to (in the devs perspective, that is).

    Way back in the day I remember getting in rpm hell frequently and having to rebuild from a blank hard drive.

    Of late, I used CEntOS and have developed a fondness of yum. However, my lack of knowledge led me to destroy a server during a yum upgrade where the paths of the certs for libvirtd were changed. I had the virtuals on a second partition, rebuilt the OS on the primary part with Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, rebuilt the xml files defining the VMs and then wiped my hands of CEntOS. I respect the distro, but it doesn't respect me.

    I find Ubuntu's LTS versions to be a nice compromise of stability and features.
    Stability isn't just about crashes. It's about how often you need to upgrade to a new major version. I have about 20 systems that I have providing services and If I have to rebuild or perform a serious upgrade every six months, I'd shoot myself.

    At work, when *nix is required, they are strictly CEntOS. There are probably 200 *nix servers. At my day job I support ~20K M$ workstations and have limited involvment in server management. I have a few M$ and *nix servers helping me support the workstations, but the infrastructure consists of about 2K M$ server systems.

    Jazzy_J
    ... Heisenberg may have slept here.
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ JAYSCAFE2 - jayscafe2.jayctheriot.com
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to Jazzy_J on Mon Dec 5 07:57:38 2016
    Hello Jazzy_J,

    On 04 Dec 16 18:31, Jazzy_J wrote to Accession:

    Can you explain some details? What does it do differently than
    DEB packaging? I mean, I can't see how it could possibly be THAT
    bad especially when there are others out there to compare to (in
    the devs perspective, that is).

    Way back in the day I remember getting in rpm hell frequently and
    having to rebuild from a blank hard drive.

    This is the kind of stuff I remember hearing about. At least back 15 or so years ago. Although I have heard this is rarely the case nowadays.

    Of late, I used CEntOS and have developed a fondness of yum. However,
    my lack of knowledge led me to destroy a server during a yum upgrade
    where the paths of the certs for libvirtd were changed. I had the

    So I take it CentOS is sort of like Debian in the sense of only major security updates occurring until they package together a whole new distribution version?
    If that's the case and you go to upgrade, does yum let you know and possibly give you an option to do a full upgrade to that next version?

    I find Ubuntu's LTS versions to be a nice compromise of stability and features. Stability isn't just about crashes. It's about how often
    you need to upgrade to a new major version. I have about 20 systems
    that I have providing services and If I have to rebuild or perform a serious upgrade every six months, I'd shoot myself.

    I've never had issues with *buntu (I've really only used Ubuntu and Kubuntu in the past), especially the LTS versions, usually up until it's time to upgrade. I remember just about every time I upgraded *buntu to the newer version, there would be video driver problems, usually rendering the machine useless until you
    booted into the CLI and fixed it. I think that was back when proprietary drivers will still being used by the majority, rather than using the newer open
    source ones.

    At work, when *nix is required, they are strictly CEntOS. There are probably 200 *nix servers. At my day job I support ~20K M$
    workstations and have limited involvment in server management. I have
    a few M$ and *nix servers helping me support the workstations, but the infrastructure consists of about 2K M$ server systems.

    Sounds like a fun day at the office. I take it they tend to leave those CentOS systems alone for the most part then (except possibly some major security updates)?

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From alliekbean@VERT/MBL to Accession on Mon Dec 5 17:43:51 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Accession to Jazzy_J on Mon Dec 05 2016 07:57:38

    This is the kind of stuff I remember hearing about. At least back 15 or so years ago. Although I have heard this is rarely the case nowadays.

    I think this was a problem in the past due to lackluster management of packages. You'd get circular dependencies and such. I've used RHEL at work for years now and never run into this problem, although you do once in a while get issues where if you happened to install a package that has optional dependencies of other packages, those other packages become mandatory such that removing them removes the package that is supposed to only optionally depend on them.

    So I take it CentOS is sort of like Debian in the sense of only major security updates occurring until they package together a whole new distribution version?

    CentOS is a community-supported/free version of RHEL, built from all the SRPMS that Red Hat publishes. It's more or less identical to RHEL, but without the Red Hat branding and support from Red Hat.

    Each major version is supported for a specific amount of time, with development/updates winding down through each phase. At first there's still development and improvement with new features, then eventually only security fixes/bugfixes, and finally only high priority security fixes. However, these tend to happen somewhat concurrently with new development versions being released. RHEL 5, RHEL 6, and RHEL 7 are all still supported by Red Hat, but with the oldest getting just security fixes and the newest still receiving improvements. CentOS mostly mirrors this.

    If that's the case and you go to upgrade, does yum let you know and possibly give you an option to do a full upgrade to that next version?

    You don't usually upgrade major versions of CentOS or RHEL with yum. You boot off an install DVD and perform an upgrade that way, as upgrading using yum can lead to all kinds of problems. This is pretty standard for rpm based distributions, as far as I know, with Fedora having special tools to upgrade from one major version to another. It's not nearly as easy as it is to perform full system upgrades on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch/etc.

    -- alliekbean

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ .: moonboot labs :. telnet://bbs.moonbootlabs.net
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to alliekbean on Tue Dec 6 07:48:14 2016
    Hello alliekbean,

    On 05 Dec 16 17:43, alliekbean wrote to Accession:

    So I take it CentOS is sort of like Debian in the sense of only
    major security updates occurring until they package together a
    whole new distribution version?

    CentOS is a community-supported/free version of RHEL, built from all
    the SRPMS that Red Hat publishes. It's more or less identical to RHEL,
    but without the Red Hat branding and support from Red Hat.

    Each major version is supported for a specific amount of time, with development/updates winding down through each phase. At first there's still development and improvement with new features, then eventually
    only security fixes/bugfixes, and finally only high priority security fixes. However, these tend to happen somewhat concurrently with new development versions being released. RHEL 5, RHEL 6, and RHEL 7 are
    all still supported by Red Hat, but with the oldest getting just
    security fixes and the newest still receiving improvements. CentOS
    mostly mirrors this.

    Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

    If that's the case and you go to upgrade, does yum let you know and
    possibly give you an option to do a full upgrade to that next
    version?

    You don't usually upgrade major versions of CentOS or RHEL with yum.
    You boot off an install DVD and perform an upgrade that way, as
    upgrading using yum can lead to all kinds of problems. This is pretty standard for rpm based distributions, as far as I know, with Fedora
    having special tools to upgrade from one major version to another.
    It's not nearly as easy as it is to perform full system upgrades on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch/etc.

    Ah, okay. Seems like kind of a bummer if you were to admin multiple CentOS servers that required a major update. Would the DVD install actually detect the
    current CentOS system and just upgrade it? Or is it a completely new install?

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Sampsa@VERT/B4BBS to Deavmi on Tue Dec 6 19:26:00 2016
    Deavmi wrote to Sampsa <=-

    I use nano only. I also use big text. I just do the Ctrl and Shift and
    + and the Ctrl and - whnever I need it.

    My options are basically:

    - Quick edit to a small config file on a server? nano
    - Some edits to code on a server? emacs
    - Edit 10,000 lines of code in 50 files? sshfs + Smultron 6 on my OS X box.

    sampsa

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)
  • From Sampsa@VERT/B4BBS to Accession on Tue Dec 6 19:34:00 2016
    Accession wrote to Sampsa <=-

    So I have four DASD devices, 0120, 0121, 0130 and 0131.

    Every couple of boots, the /dev/dasd name given to 0121 and 0130 is swapped around. So that's totally fucking random behaviour to me.

    I've never seen this activity before. Then again, I don't have DASD devices, either. Maybe it's specific to your devices and/or your configuration?

    Yeah I think it's a bug in udev - but the amusing fact that "predictable
    device names" actually made them less predicatable is still a lot of lols
    for me.

    I would say a bit of all three probably, with emphasis on the hobbyist part. I'll try and/or use the best fit for the task at hand. I'm a bit
    of a PC gamer as well, so I also have a Win10 machine for Call of Duty, Battlefield 1, The Division, and soon the new Mass Effect that's coming out in spring of 2017.

    Ah ok, I'm a freelance infosec consultant so I've tuned my system to the
    needs that I have (I also do some hobbyist coding and run some network
    projects like UUHECNET and SIMNET etc).

    My OS X setup is perfect for what I do - both professionally and for fun.

    Not so much of a gamer, but I was shocked at the amount of native games
    there are for OS X on Steam nowadays.

    If companies like Activision, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Bioware, and whatever else would contribute their games to the Linux world, I
    wouldn't have a need for Windows whatsoever. But they don't, so I keep
    it around for what I need it for. *shrug*

    Problem with Linux if you're going to release binary-only stuff is that it
    will only run in a specific kernel/glibc combo. So the amount of choices
    people have actually makes it harder for games companies to release a game that'll run across all the various distros etc reliably.

    In fact the commercial security software I work with the most specifies
    a SPECIFIC version of RHEL it will run under - or no support.

    Of course it'll RUN under under CentOS of the same version if you hack /etc/release to make it look like a RHEL install - but each release ONLY supports one specific version of RHEL, because they don't want their support guy trying to figure out if it's an OS problem or an issue with their software.

    sampsa


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)
  • From Hemo@VERT/UJOINT to Accession on Tue Dec 6 13:41:55 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Accession to alliekbean on Tue Dec 06 2016 07:48 am

    If that's the case and you go to upgrade, does yum let you know and
    possibly give you an option to do a full upgrade to that next
    version?

    You don't usually upgrade major versions of CentOS or RHEL with yum.
    You boot off an install DVD and perform an upgrade that way, as
    upgrading using yum can lead to all kinds of problems. This is
    pretty standard for rpm based distributions, as far as I know, with
    Fedora having special tools to upgrade from one major version to
    another. It's not nearly as easy as it is to perform full system
    upgrades on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch/etc.

    Ah, okay. Seems like kind of a bummer if you were to admin multiple CentOS servers that required a major update. Would the DVD install actually detect the current CentOS system and just upgrade it? Or is it a completely new install?

    I don't fathom why anyone would ever do an in-place major relase upgrade of any production system, whether it use apr or yum. I've found both systems are easily confused and broken this way. Stick with the maintainance and security upgrades and you are fine.

    On personal servers, I run amok with the preupdate and dist-upgrade sorts of commands to 'see what happens'.

    I've messed up a few Ubuntu systems using apt-get do-release-upgrade.

    By the time any of the CentOS systems I admin would 'require' a major update, we are usually building new boxes with newer hardware and newer releases of software.

    I think the same applies to Windows systems too.. it is better to start with a fresh install of the new OS release than to upgrade the old release.


    -- Hemo

    ... What a man needs in gardening is a cast iron back with a hinge in it.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ - Running madly into the wind and screaming - bbs.ujoint.org
  • From Tony@VERT/FRIENDS to Deavmi on Tue Dec 6 19:00:00 2016
    Sampsa wrote to Deavmi <=-

    Deavmi wrote to Sampsa <=-

    I use nano only. I also use big text. I just do the Ctrl and Shift and
    + and the Ctrl and - whnever I need it.

    My options are basically:

    - Quick edit to a small config file on a server? nano
    - Some edits to code on a server? emacs
    - Edit 10,000 lines of code in 50 files? sshfs + Smultron 6 on my OS X box.

    sampsa

    Nano is very useful...but if I have to change some configuraton on the fly sed and awk are your best friends.
    For automation and push all on remote servers combination of git/puppet/ansible and ansible playbook for
    comamnd execution in remote are the best to remote server administration...

    About distro? My favorite is Debian for server or CentOS if the business require RHE but always try to suggest Debian.

    Home users I don't really many years ago I used FreeBSD than Ubuntu but several years I am very comfortable with Mac.

    Thanks

    Tony

    ... What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind! - Homer S.
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ .:: Friends BBS ::.:: London ::.
  • From alliekbean@VERT/MBL to Accession on Tue Dec 6 17:24:56 2016
    Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Accession to alliekbean on Tue Dec 06 2016 07:48:14

    You don't usually upgrade major versions of CentOS or RHEL with yum. You boot off an install DVD and perform an upgrade that way, as upgrading using yum can lead to all kinds of problems. This is pretty standard for rpm based distributions, as far as I know, with Fedora having special tools to upgrade from one major version to another.
    It's not nearly as easy as it is to perform full system upgrades on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch/etc.

    Ah, okay. Seems like kind of a bummer if you were to admin multiple CentOS servers that required a major update. Would the DVD install actually detect the
    current CentOS system and just upgrade it? Or is it a completely new install?

    Very rarely would you upgrade a production system from one major release to another. It's much safer to back up all your data, make disks with the newer major version, and then set it up with all your data. If you're using enterprise versions of Linux, unless an upgrade provides something you really need, there's just no real reason to upgrade provided the version you're using is still supported.

    But to answer your question, yes, you'd have to go to each system and upgrade it by disc if you were insistent on upgrading to a new major version.

    -- alliekbean

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ .: moonboot labs :. telnet://bbs.moonbootlabs.net
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to Tony on Wed Dec 7 16:35:00 2016
    Tony wrote to Deavmi <=-

    Nano is very useful...but if I have to change some configuraton on the
    fly sed and awk are your best friends.

    And sometimes grep and friends. I've got some "self configuring" scripts that adapt to where they are in the filesystem, by grepping the current configuration file for certain apps, to get the correct settings.

    For automation and push all on remote servers combination of git/puppet/ansible and ansible playbook for
    comamnd execution in remote are the best to remote server administration...

    About distro? My favorite is Debian for server or CentOS if the
    business require RHE but always try to suggest Debian.

    I'm the same with Distro. Debian is my distro of choice for servers, but will use CentOS if necessary.

    Home users I don't really many years ago I used FreeBSD than Ubuntu but several years I am very comfortable with Mac.

    I loved the Mac, but for reasons of economy I am back on Windows for my desktop and laptops.


    ... "640K of RAM should be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.
  • From kc2ugv@VERT/KC2UGV to Chris on Wed Dec 7 08:39:00 2016
    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards
    just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?


    Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.

    I try to find a balancing act. I would prefer to use all-libre software, but alas, my GPU will almost never be supported initially with a libre driver. Same with my wifi card.

    So, I'd prefer a piece of libre software, but in the end, I need to get work done. Which is why I stick with Ubuntu server, and go from there.


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS
  • From kc2ugv@VERT/KC2UGV to Accession on Wed Dec 7 08:48:00 2016
    Compared to what, DEB?


    I think when rpm was first introduced, it lacked any sort of dependency management. apt came before yum.

    So, perhaps it may be accurate to say dpkg is better than rpm, but I think
    both suck on their own, which is why we have apt and yum.


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS
  • From kc2ugv@VERT/KC2UGV to Deavmi on Wed Dec 7 09:26:00 2016
    Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch.. I'
    e
    vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)

    Regards,
    Nick


    Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.
    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net

    lol, noobs. Solarized light, ftw :P

    (I kid, I kid! Everyone has their own preferences)


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS
  • From kc2ugv@VERT/KC2UGV to Accession on Wed Dec 7 09:34:00 2016
    I wanted an honest opinion, not something quoted from a biased website.


    While it is a quote, it's factual.

    Systemd is great for desktops. Not surprising, as it's modeled after launchd from Mac OS.

    However, it over-complicates most anything on the server side, which is where the vast majority of Linux installs are.

    Case in point: Journald. Did you know, there's no way to turn this off?
    Most say,"Who cares! Turn the journal down to 512MB (The minimum) and just send logs wherever you want!"

    True, I could do that. However, when you're deploying 6-8000 machines across many DC's, 512MB per instance adds up. And, it costs money. Can I disable
    it? Nope.

    Systemd handles network interface management. What if you don't want
    anything managing your network, other than an enforced config? Can I
    disabled this? Nope. Core component.

    Systemd handles seat management. Who cares about seat management? My
    headless machines have no seats. Can I disabled this? Nope. It uses about 100MB of RAM too. Again, wasted money.

    Now, getting into DE's: Can you install Gnome3 without systemd? Nope. Hard requirement. Now, it's said that one can write their own implementations of logind, but what is even the point of logind? Who cares since most machines are either:
    A) Headless (A server, which has no seats)
    B) Single-user machines?

    Again, wasted resources, and needless interlocking of dependencies.

    These are just some of the problems with systemd. Don't even need to get
    into the development team's attitudes of "Never a bug in systemd, it's a bug
    in the other package" attitude (ie, dropping networks before unmounting NFS filesystems, thereby hanging halt; or using the debug kernel flag to crash
    the kernel, because systemd wants all the kernel namespace to manage.)


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS
  • From kc2ugv@VERT/KC2UGV to Accession on Wed Dec 7 09:41:00 2016
    I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi 3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86 machine it was
    renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from that. So I'm unsure as to where the "totally f'ing random" is coming from.


    That's a distro thing with the Pi. Most pi distros lock the interface names.

    As for random device naming, yes, systemd is prone to randomly renaming block devices, because it presumes everyone relies on UUIDs for block devices.

    For network devices, yep: That device name will not change, until you move
    it. Then it will.

    I kind of get it. Yes, it's kinda irritating to swap out a faulty NIC, and
    you had to edit udev rules to put it where it's supposed to be, whereas systemd's (un)predictable naming bases it on driver + plane + bus + slot. Which, is predictable once installed (It never changes, as long as it's the same type of NIC, in the same slot, on the same bus, on the same backplane).

    But, until you know it's name, you'll never now what it was.

    With the older system, the first NIC is eth0. eth0 was guaranteed to exist, and could be relied upon as fail safe. wlan0 was (almost) always the first wireless device. Same idea.

    Now, it's all random guessing whenever I plug my phone in to tether... I get
    a 16 char long device name, whereas it used to be "wlan1".


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to kc2ugv on Wed Dec 7 08:33:20 2016
    Hello kc2ugv,

    On 07 Dec 16 08:48, kc2ugv wrote to Accession:

    Compared to what, DEB?


    I think when rpm was first introduced, it lacked any sort of
    dependency management. apt came before yum.

    I'd have to go back and look to make sure, but I believe I originally asked that because the person I was replying to was comparing RPM and APT, which is like apples and oranges. I wanted to get it back to the proper comparison, which was RPM and DEB. Can't just throw a package manager into the comparison and expect no confustion. :)

    So, perhaps it may be accurate to say dpkg is better than rpm, but I
    think both suck on their own, which is why we have apt and yum.

    And the many other derivatives out there that basically do the exact same. Seems like just about every popular distro out there these days are coming up with their own package managers - which is not a bad thing as long as they do their job properly.

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From Poindexter Fortran@VERT/REALITY to Tony on Wed Dec 7 06:40:32 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Tony to Deavmi on Tue Dec 06 2016 07:00 pm

    Nano is very useful...but if I have to change some configuraton on the fly sed and awk are your best friends.

    I purchased an Oreilly e-book bundle through humblebundle.com - 15 classic O'Reilly titles in DRM-free ebooks for $15.

    The SED and AWK book is included, I wanted to read up on it for a little BBS project that's been on my to-do list for some time. I download an argus.txt file for my mailer to use, but need to hand-hack it for one node before updating the mailer. I'd like to be able to automate editing a text file and SED seems the perfect tool for that.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
  • From Poindexter Fortran@VERT/REALITY to Vk3jed on Wed Dec 7 06:42:22 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Vk3jed to Tony on Wed Dec 07 2016 04:35 pm

    And sometimes grep and friends.

    I didn't realize how much I mised grep in the Windows world until I installed a Win32 version on the BBS. It and dir /s end up being much more useful than the OS tools.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to kc2ugv on Wed Dec 7 13:15:06 2016
    Hello kc2ugv,

    On 07 Dec 16 09:34, kc2ugv wrote to Accession:

    I wanted an honest opinion, not something quoted from a biased
    website.


    While it is a quote, it's factual.

    Whether or not it's factual or not is still up in the air. It's still an opinion that some others don't have. I was asking the original poster for his personal opinion, much like I got one from you as well. I can get opinions from
    websites on my own. This is a more personal discussion, so I would rather have personal responses. :)

    Also, before you read into this any further.. I'm not trying to argue here at all. I'm simply asking questions that I may or may not have my own answers to. Just as well, trying to see the other side of the fence from others' point of view.

    Systemd is great for desktops. Not surprising, as it's modeled after launchd from Mac OS.

    Since I don't follow Mac stuff, I didn't know that. So thank you for that tidbit.

    However, it over-complicates most anything on the server side, which
    is where the vast majority of Linux installs are.

    I'm guessing on a much larger scale? I have run quite a few servers here from home as well as outside of home, and systemd has done everything I need it to so far.

    I mean, at this point there must be many more people in favor of it than against it, since most Linux distributions are using it by now.

    Case in point: Journald. Did you know, there's no way to turn this
    off? Most say,"Who cares! Turn the journal down to 512MB (The
    minimum) and just send logs wherever you want!"

    Did you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And rather than writing a script or
    using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you can do much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an option for that. :)

    True, I could do that. However, when you're deploying 6-8000 machines across many DC's, 512MB per instance adds up. And, it costs money.
    Can I disable it? Nope.

    Kinda brings me back to the question of why you would want to turn your system log off..? What did you do with syslog or /var/log/messages when you had these same thoughts? Logrotate?

    Systemd handles network interface management. What if you don't want anything managing your network, other than an enforced config? Can I disabled this? Nope. Core component.

    What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could you disable it without losing your network connectivity?

    Now, getting into DE's: Can you install Gnome3 without systemd?
    Nope. Hard requirement. Now, it's said that one can write their own implementations of logind, but what is even the point of logind? Who cares since most machines are either: A) Headless (A server, which has
    no seats) B) Single-user machines?

    You may be diving a little deeper with the above. Gnome3 and most other DE's aren't usually used on servers. If they are, there's many more other things that should be worried about than logind or systemd. :)

    Just seems like there's more benefits than caveats, and that's why most distibutions went the systemd route. That and the fact that now they (distro specific devs) can all work together in unison to accomplish the same tasks, rather than have to change everything that comes from upstream for specific distributions.

    Heck it looks like even RedHat/CentOS are using it now since version 7 (which is surprising).

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From alliekbean@VERT/MBL to kc2ugv on Wed Dec 7 12:45:34 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: kc2ugv to Accession on Wed Dec 07 2016 09:34:00

    Case in point: Journald. Did you know, there's no way to turn this off? Most say,"Who cares! Turn the journal down to 512MB (The minimum) and just send logs wherever you want!"

    Just curious here, but why would you want to disable logging entirely on a system? Even if you're sending logs to a remote syslog server, you'd still have rsyslog or something running on each individual machine, so I'm not sure exactly why one would need to disable logging.

    Systemd handles network interface management. What if you don't want anything managing your network, other than an enforced config? Can I disabled this? Nope. Core component.

    How so? On both my Arch and RHEL 7 systems, systemd doesn't manage network interfaces at all. I use netctl on Arch and NetworkManager on RHEL 7. While netctl sets up systemd services to manage the network interfaces, I don't think it's systemd managing them directly, it's just putting them in the proper place based on the dependencies netctl says it has. I don't think NetworkManager works does this at all, handling everything internally once it starts.

    Systemd handles seat management. Who cares about seat management? My headless machines have no seats. Can I disabled this? Nope. It uses about 100MB of RAM too. Again, wasted money.

    From what I know logind does more than just manage seats for X. It handles a lot of session setup, logging, DBus stuff, etc. I think it's also involved with having user-controlled systemd services as well, and those can come in really handy.

    I'm not sure where you're getting the 100MB of RAM figure, because on my headless Arch system it takes about 8MB, and on my laptop Arch system it takes about 40MB (with X running). I don't know what distribution you're using, but maybe this is something related to that and not logind itself?

    Now, getting into DE's: Can you install Gnome3 without systemd? Nope.
    Hard requirement. Now, it's said that one can write their own implementations of logind, but what is even the point of logind? Who cares since most machines are either:
    A) Headless (A server, which has no seats)
    B) Single-user machines?

    Again, wasted resources, and needless interlocking of dependencies.

    If you don't know what the point of logind is, perhaps you should start there? From everything I've read, GNOME 3 is using logind so they don't have to implement all the stuff it does on their own. I believe that's a pretty valid reason.

    I agree with you that systemd has issues when it comes to making things more complicated when they don't always need to be, their development process and attitude, etc. But I've actually found it to work quite well on servers in my own experiences.

    -- alliekbean

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ .: moonboot labs :. telnet://bbs.moonbootlabs.net
  • From alliekbean@VERT/MBL to kc2ugv on Wed Dec 7 12:48:40 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: kc2ugv to Accession on Wed Dec 07 2016 09:41:00

    I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi 3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86 machine it was renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from that. So I'm unsure as to where the "totally f'ing random" is coming from.

    That's a distro thing with the Pi. Most pi distros lock the interface names.

    As for random device naming, yes, systemd is prone to randomly renaming block devices, because it presumes everyone relies on UUIDs for block devices.

    For network devices, yep: That device name will not change, until you move it. Then it will.

    The Linux kernel is what decides to name interfaces the weird, wonky names. At some point the Linux kernel developers made the decision to name interfaces based on the driver and I think the order in which they're detected. But it should also be possible to rename the interfaces with udev rules.

    -- alliekbean

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ .: moonboot labs :. telnet://bbs.moonbootlabs.net
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to Sampsa on Thu Dec 8 10:18:58 2016
    On 2016-12-06 09:26 PM, Sampsa wrote:
    Deavmi wrote to Sampsa <=-

    I use nano only. I also use big text. I just do the Ctrl and Shift and
    + and the Ctrl and - whnever I need it.

    My options are basically:

    - Quick edit to a small config file on a server? nano
    - Some edits to code on a server? emacs
    - Edit 10,000 lines of code in 50 files? sshfs + Smultron 6 on my OS X box.

    sampsa

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    � Synchronet � B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)

    Mounting a file system viua ssh is dayum nice. I do that too from time
    to time.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to kc2ugv on Thu Dec 8 10:22:22 2016
    On 2016-12-07 10:39 AM, kc2ugv wrote:
    When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?


    Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.

    I try to find a balancing act. I would prefer to use all-libre software, but alas, my GPU will almost never be supported initially with a libre driver. Same with my wifi card.

    So, I'd prefer a piece of libre software, but in the end, I need to get work done. Which is why I stick with Ubuntu server, and go from there.


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS

    Thankfully my wifi card has libre drivers, not my GPU though, so it has
    become a paper weight.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to kc2ugv on Thu Dec 8 10:22:57 2016
    On 2016-12-07 10:48 AM, kc2ugv wrote:
    Compared to what, DEB?


    I think when rpm was first introduced, it lacked any sort of dependency management. apt came before yum.

    So, perhaps it may be accurate to say dpkg is better than rpm, but I think both suck on their own, which is why we have apt and yum.


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS

    So did you have to install the dependancies for a specific program
    manually then?

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to kc2ugv on Thu Dec 8 10:23:41 2016
    On 2016-12-07 11:26 AM, kc2ugv wrote:
    Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch.. I'
    e
    vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)

    Regards,
    Nick


    Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.
    ---
    � Synchronet � Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net

    lol, noobs. Solarized light, ftw :P

    (I kid, I kid! Everyone has their own preferences)


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS

    I like it like that, distraction free. You expect me to use lime greeen
    on black (which can be nice but still).

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From kc2ugv@VERT/KC2UGV to Accession on Thu Dec 8 07:18:00 2016
    I'm guessing on a much larger scale? I have run quite a few servers here from home as well as outside of home, and systemd has done everything I need it to so far.

    Yes. On a large scale, where most linux deployments are (That, and embedded devices).

    Did you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And rather than writing
    a script or


    No, why would I turn syslog off? It's a robust logging facility, that is
    time tested, and not prone to corruption of logs, unlike journald.

    I would like to be able to disable journald, so I'm not wasting resources on it, since syslog facilities are what get used in mass deployments.

    using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you can do
    much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an option for that. :)


    There's nothing wrong with grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog. They are all capable of parallel processing the log.

    Regardless, don't use that for much other than quick reports, on the spot.
    On large scale deployments, syslog ships the logs to a ACID-compliant db backend. Why waste resources on journald, whose db is not ACID compliant?

    What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could you disable it without losing your network connectivity?


    You don't manage a networking interface. It gets brought up at boot, and doesn't change.

    We're not talking about laptops here. We're talking about servers, which generally stay on, all the time.

    If by some change the connection drops, it has a static assignment, and just starts taking traffic again. No need for "interface management" on servers.

    You may be diving a little deeper with the above. Gnome3 and most other DE's aren't usually used on servers. If they are, there's many more
    other things that should be worried about than logind or systemd. :)


    Exactly. So, why is there a need for an init system that manages seats, networking, syslogging, an ssh shell, login manager, DE, etc for the vast majority of systems where none of that is required?

    distibutions went the systemd route. That and the fact that now they (distro specific devs) can all work together in unison to accomplish the same tasks, rather than have to change everything that comes from
    upstream for specific distributions.

    Heck it looks like even RedHat/CentOS are using it now since version 7 (which is surprising).


    How does systemd make it any easier for devs? Syslog, ssh, inits are all application agnostic.

    There's nothing to change upstream, anymore than there was prior to systemd.

    As for RHEL/Centos deploying systemd, of course they are: RH is the group
    that wrote it, and is pushing it. They are looking to mold Linux into what makes money for them, not to be the best OS.


    Corey, KC2UGV

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
    * Origin: Solar Pi BBS
  • From Accession@VERT/PHARCYDE to kc2ugv on Thu Dec 8 08:01:02 2016
    Hello kc2ugv,

    On 08 Dec 16 07:18, kc2ugv wrote to Accession:

    Did you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging
    facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And
    rather than writing a script or

    No, why would I turn syslog off? It's a robust logging facility, that
    is time tested, and not prone to corruption of logs, unlike journald.

    That's basically what it seems like you're saying you want to do. When using systemd, journald is the system service for logging in general. So saying you'd
    like to shut it off is basically saying one of two things: 1) you want to turn off/disable your system logging service, or 2) you don't want to use systemd in
    general (which is the only option I could actually see agreeing with).

    I would like to be able to disable journald, so I'm not wasting
    resources on it, since syslog facilities are what get used in mass deployments.

    I'm fairly certain you cannot use systemd without journald. So if you want to disable it, you can't use systemd. This can still be done if you're willing to take the right steps to do so.

    using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you
    can do much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for
    something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an
    option for that. :)


    There's nothing wrong with grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog.
    They are all capable of parallel processing the log.

    I didn't say there was anything wrong with them. I said journalctl makes things
    easier by giving command line options to do the same exact thing.

    Regardless, don't use that for much other than quick reports, on the
    spot. On large scale deployments, syslog ships the logs to a ACID-compliant db backend. Why waste resources on journald, whose db
    is not ACID compliant?

    Maybe it has a compliance with something else that can be used instead? After all, when upgrading one system on a large scale deployment, usually you're doing a lot more than just that one. Obviously, journald is going to have one looking for a new way to gather everything together in a new form of db.

    You seem to keep going back to original programs you've been used to using. It doesn't seem like the move to systemd is going to cater to what everyone has been used to for however long. I think the major issues people against systemd are having is that they've done something a certain way for so long and now they're somewhat being forced to learn something different.. and I'm sure it's a hell of a lot of work upgrading large scale deployments - with or without systemd. But, one can look at the positive side of things too (ie: job security).

    What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could
    you disable it without losing your network connectivity?


    You don't manage a networking interface. It gets brought up at boot,
    and doesn't change.

    Exactly. Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

    We're not talking about laptops here. We're talking about servers,
    which generally stay on, all the time.

    Still need networking to be brought up during that first boot, though, right?

    If by some change the connection drops, it has a static assignment,
    and just starts taking traffic again. No need for "interface
    management" on servers.

    Petition to have it removed with your specific company, then? Heck, I don't know. This part of the discussion seems kind of redundant.

    How does systemd make it any easier for devs? Syslog, ssh, inits are
    all application agnostic.

    How about the applications themselves, and not the system dependant stuff? Applications can now ship with simple .service files that will work on every distribution out there using systemd, straight from upstream. I seem to recall distros using sysvinit even differing on the location/placement of init scripts, rather than joining together to make them work across many platforms?

    There's nothing to change upstream, anymore than there was prior to systemd.

    It's not about changing, it's about providing a simple service file, and no matter what distro it goes to, will work without having to modify it to suit said distro.

    As for RHEL/Centos deploying systemd, of course they are: RH is the
    group that wrote it, and is pushing it. They are looking to mold
    Linux into what makes money for them, not to be the best OS.

    What distros still _don't_ use systemd? I'm assuming Slackware and Gentoo right
    off the bat, but any others?

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    ■ Synchronet ■ thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
  • From alliekbean@VERT/MBL to Deavmi on Thu Dec 8 07:45:56 2016
    Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
    By: Deavmi to kc2ugv on Thu Dec 08 2016 10:22:57

    I think when rpm was first introduced, it lacked any sort of dependency management. apt came before yum.

    So, perhaps it may be accurate to say dpkg is better than rpm, but I think both suck on their own, which is why we have apt and yum.

    So did you have to install the dependancies for a specific program
    manually then?

    Sort of. rpm handled dependencies, but it didn't auto-install packages for you. So if you tried to install something and were missing a package, it would tell you, but you'd have to install that one by yourself. Obviously that's a pain if you have a whole bunch of packages that are missing. It did have network support, though (and still does), so you can install a package from a URL and it'll download and install it.

    -- alliekbean

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ .: moonboot labs :. telnet://bbs.moonbootlabs.net
  • From Tony@VERT/FRIENDS to Tony on Thu Dec 8 12:04:00 2016
    Poindexter Fortran wrote to Tony <=-

    it for one node before updating the mailer. I'd like to be able to automate editing a text file and SED seems the perfect tool for that.

    Well there are several good pdf manual about SED and AWK online, but yes definetely SED for scripting is the best tool, you can several commands
    and/or regular expressions.

    Tony

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
    ■ Synchronet ■ .:: Friends BBS ::.:: London ::.
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to Accession on Fri Dec 9 17:45:38 2016
    On 2016-12-08 04:01 PM, Accession wrote:
    Hello kc2ugv,

    On 08 Dec 16 07:18, kc2ugv wrote to Accession:

    Did you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging
    facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And
    rather than writing a script or

    No, why would I turn syslog off? It's a robust logging facility, that is time tested, and not prone to corruption of logs, unlike journald.

    That's basically what it seems like you're saying you want to do. When using systemd, journald is the system service for logging in general. So saying you'd
    like to shut it off is basically saying one of two things: 1) you want to turn
    off/disable your system logging service, or 2) you don't want to use systemd in
    general (which is the only option I could actually see agreeing with).

    I would like to be able to disable journald, so I'm not wasting resources on it, since syslog facilities are what get used in mass deployments.

    I'm fairly certain you cannot use systemd without journald. So if you want to disable it, you can't use systemd. This can still be done if you're willing to
    take the right steps to do so.

    using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you
    can do much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for
    something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an
    option for that. :)


    There's nothing wrong with grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog.
    They are all capable of parallel processing the log.

    I didn't say there was anything wrong with them. I said journalctl makes things
    easier by giving command line options to do the same exact thing.

    Regardless, don't use that for much other than quick reports, on the spot. On large scale deployments, syslog ships the logs to a ACID-compliant db backend. Why waste resources on journald, whose db
    is not ACID compliant?

    Maybe it has a compliance with something else that can be used instead? After all, when upgrading one system on a large scale deployment, usually you're doing a lot more than just that one. Obviously, journald is going to have one looking for a new way to gather everything together in a new form of db.

    You seem to keep going back to original programs you've been used to using. It
    doesn't seem like the move to systemd is going to cater to what everyone has been used to for however long. I think the major issues people against systemd
    are having is that they've done something a certain way for so long and now they're somewhat being forced to learn something different.. and I'm sure it's
    a hell of a lot of work upgrading large scale deployments - with or without systemd. But, one can look at the positive side of things too (ie: job security).

    What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could
    you disable it without losing your network connectivity?


    You don't manage a networking interface. It gets brought up at boot, and doesn't change.

    Exactly. Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

    We're not talking about laptops here. We're talking about servers, which generally stay on, all the time.

    Still need networking to be brought up during that first boot, though, right?

    If by some change the connection drops, it has a static assignment,
    and just starts taking traffic again. No need for "interface management" on servers.

    Petition to have it removed with your specific company, then? Heck, I don't know. This part of the discussion seems kind of redundant.

    How does systemd make it any easier for devs? Syslog, ssh, inits are all application agnostic.

    How about the applications themselves, and not the system dependant stuff? Applications can now ship with simple .service files that will work on every distribution out there using systemd, straight from upstream. I seem to recall
    distros using sysvinit even differing on the location/placement of init scripts, rather than joining together to make them work across many platforms?

    There's nothing to change upstream, anymore than there was prior to systemd.

    It's not about changing, it's about providing a simple service file, and no matter what distro it goes to, will work without having to modify it to suit said distro.

    As for RHEL/Centos deploying systemd, of course they are: RH is the group that wrote it, and is pushing it. They are looking to mold
    Linux into what makes money for them, not to be the best OS.

    What distros still _don't_ use systemd? I'm assuming Slackware and Gentoo right
    off the bat, but any others?

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    � Synchronet � thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

    Devuan, something like that.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
  • From Deavmi@VERT/EWBBS to Deavmi on Fri Dec 9 17:46:18 2016
    On 2016-12-09 05:45 PM, Deavmi wrote:
    On 2016-12-08 04:01 PM, Accession wrote:
    Hello kc2ugv,

    On 08 Dec 16 07:18, kc2ugv wrote to Accession:

    Did you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging
    facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And
    rather than writing a script or

    No, why would I turn syslog off? It's a robust logging facility,
    that
    is time tested, and not prone to corruption of logs, unlike
    journald.

    That's basically what it seems like you're saying you want to do. When
    using
    systemd, journald is the system service for logging in general. So
    saying you'd
    like to shut it off is basically saying one of two things: 1) you want
    to turn
    off/disable your system logging service, or 2) you don't want to use
    systemd in
    general (which is the only option I could actually see agreeing with).

    I would like to be able to disable journald, so I'm not wasting
    resources on it, since syslog facilities are what get used in mass
    deployments.

    I'm fairly certain you cannot use systemd without journald. So if you
    want to
    disable it, you can't use systemd. This can still be done if you're
    willing to
    take the right steps to do so.

    using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you
    can do much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for
    something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an
    option for that. :)


    There's nothing wrong with grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog.
    They are all capable of parallel processing the log.

    I didn't say there was anything wrong with them. I said journalctl
    makes things
    easier by giving command line options to do the same exact thing.

    Regardless, don't use that for much other than quick reports, on the
    spot. On large scale deployments, syslog ships the logs to a
    ACID-compliant db backend. Why waste resources on journald,
    whose db
    is not ACID compliant?

    Maybe it has a compliance with something else that can be used
    instead? After
    all, when upgrading one system on a large scale deployment, usually
    you're
    doing a lot more than just that one. Obviously, journald is going to
    have one
    looking for a new way to gather everything together in a new form of db.

    You seem to keep going back to original programs you've been used to
    using. It
    doesn't seem like the move to systemd is going to cater to what
    everyone has
    been used to for however long. I think the major issues people against
    systemd
    are having is that they've done something a certain way for so long
    and now
    they're somewhat being forced to learn something different.. and I'm
    sure it's
    a hell of a lot of work upgrading large scale deployments - with or
    without
    systemd. But, one can look at the positive side of things too (ie: job
    security).

    What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could
    you disable it without losing your network connectivity?


    You don't manage a networking interface. It gets brought up at
    boot,
    and doesn't change.

    Exactly. Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

    We're not talking about laptops here. We're talking about servers,
    which generally stay on, all the time.

    Still need networking to be brought up during that first boot, though,
    right?

    If by some change the connection drops, it has a static assignment,
    and just starts taking traffic again. No need for "interface
    management" on servers.

    Petition to have it removed with your specific company, then? Heck, I
    don't
    know. This part of the discussion seems kind of redundant.

    How does systemd make it any easier for devs? Syslog, ssh, inits
    are
    all application agnostic.

    How about the applications themselves, and not the system dependant
    stuff?
    Applications can now ship with simple .service files that will work on
    every
    distribution out there using systemd, straight from upstream. I seem
    to recall
    distros using sysvinit even differing on the location/placement of init
    scripts, rather than joining together to make them work across many
    platforms?

    There's nothing to change upstream, anymore than there was prior to
    systemd.

    It's not about changing, it's about providing a simple service file,
    and no
    matter what distro it goes to, will work without having to modify it
    to suit
    said distro.

    As for RHEL/Centos deploying systemd, of course they are: RH is the
    group that wrote it, and is pushing it. They are looking to mold
    Linux into what makes money for them, not to be the best OS.

    What distros still _don't_ use systemd? I'm assuming Slackware and
    Gentoo right
    off the bat, but any others?

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю."
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
    * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
    � Synchronet � thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

    Devuan, something like that.
    https://devuan.org/

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net