[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: daemons -- who needs'em?

** On Apr 28, w trillich scribbled:

> > > there's still a AWFUL lot of overlap!
> > 
> > No there's not. Please give the people who wrote linux some credit for
> > sense.
> i saved the output from 
> 	tail -50 /var/log/syslog
> 	tail -50 /var/log/daemon.log
> and did a 'diff' on them: of fifty lines, there were only 8 sections
> needing an edit: 1 delete (11 lines) and 7 adds, affecting a total
> of eleven differing lines between the two logs; (50-11)/50 = 78%
> overlap.
> i think the linux folk are absolutely amazing, nonetheless. i used
> to have visions of coding grandeur... but now i sit back and gape
> at how even microsloth trembles at what linux can do.
> i merely think i have a screwy setting here or there that's 
> needlessly duplicating log messages. settings are the bane of
> my linux existence, still...
Now, stop right here for a while. syslog isn't Linux - it's a common
software, created quite elsewhere. Don't blame anybody for something which
isn't their fault. Don't like the duplicates? Voila - man syslogd.conf and
configure the beast. Or get syslogd-ng - it's much more versatile. Linux is
a _kernel_, not an _operating system_. And syslog is a piece of software
used on almost _all_ Unices out there. 
> > since there is little reason a syslogd program should not be portable.
> > Therefore, it makes excellent sense to make it be in its own daemon. Which
> > just passes log messages on to syslogd, so there is no code overlap.
> my bad. i didn't mean _code_ redundancy (heavens! did you think i was
> accusing linus of generating microsquish code?) but rather log-output
Linus isn't the only person behind Linux, just for the record.

> redundancy...
See a few lines above.

> > Given the list you posted, you seem to have installed a great deal of
> > daemons onto your debian system without knowing what they do. That is
> > not a good idea. It's the type of thing redhat people seem to do, but in
> > debian there is no point in doing so. Install a minimal system, add
> > daemons and other packages one at a time as you find the need for them.
> i started all this debian stuff about a month ago from the 2.1 cd,
> merely following on-screen prompts and installing as little as i could
> (debian cd installs a micro-set of stuff from which you reboot;
> instead of
> a shell, you're dumped into a 'select what you intend to use this computer
> for' interface [workstation/xwindows? or web/file server?] and then
> after lengthy installs, the subsequent reboot appears to have removed
> the selector utility so that you CAN'T add more stuff en masse... or at
> least a newbie surely couldn't). 
This is just to make it easier for you to start up. But it doesn't free you
from reading documentation and understanding what software serves what
purpose. It's a common sense to browse the list of installed and running
software and think what you really need. It's all in the documentation. And
dselect is your true friend in that task.

> based on my infinitesimal knowledge of commands and facilities at 
> the time, i learned from 'man' and localhost/doc that 'alien' would
> handle rpm files, and 'dpkg' would install them. thanks to this list
> i found out that those methods have been steamrollered by the more
> powerful apt-get method.
And good for you! There's no reason to blame anyone for installing so much
crap on your machine - this is not your fault nor anybody else's. It's just
a simple way to get you started.

> your philosophy is also mine--install diddly and add what you need--
> the gap between us is a hefty base of knowledge, which is why i get
> to bug you folks about this kind of thing: you got it, i'm gettin' it.
I see it a bit in a different light. Install some pre-selected set, read all
the docs you can, find your ways around and then reinstall the system from
scratch, with the freshly acquired knowledge in mind - this other time
you'll know what to install and what not to install. And, remember that
every single of us here went through much the same process sometime in the
past :))) (and thank God that you've got dselect and apt and dpkg :)))) 


Attachment: pgpn39XSQ1dlX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: