Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
On 15/10/14 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>>> On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>>> Gee.... assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd
>>>>> dependencies
>>>>> and/or systemd-shim is actually maintained and kept up-to-date.
>>>> Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
>>>>
>>> Trying to.
>>>
>>> As a start - anything that depends on udev and logging come to mind; all
>>> services that require startup (hmm... I run a server, not a desktop - so
>>> that would be pretty much everything).
I'm guessing you really don't want an OS without logging... :)
>>>
>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>
>>>
>> Miles,
>> sounds like the selection criteria for LinuxFromScratch
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
>> or maybe revive Debian for Scratch instead of relying on a progressive,
>> "Universal" OS that struggles to fund LTS and is reliant on upstream for
>> the majority of development. Embracing diversity and conservatism
>> (aversion to change) can be "a bit of a stretch".
>
> How do you come to that conclusion.
Which conclusion?
That Debian is a progressive "Universal" OS?
It changes as a result of developers seeing a need to improve - I'd call
that progressive (rather than static or regressive).
That Debian struggles to find the funding for LTS?
I read.
That Debian relies on upstream for the majority of development?
Where do you want to start - at the kernel?
That embracing diversity (both in architecture, hardware support, and
user requirements) is counter to conservatism (no change)??
Change and no change would seem contradictory *to me*.
That your own OS might suit your needs (and some others) better? (did
you take that as an offence??)
Based on the large number of posts you've made complaining that Debian's
plans don't match your needs.
If you took that as a "if you don't like it b*gger off" then you took it
wrongly - I reserve that for those who continually talk about departing
Debian. It seems that you, and others, are bent on demanding something
from developers that those developers don't want to do - it appears to
upset you and cause you stress. In short - a fruitless exercise (unless
I've seriously misjudged you and complaining does gives you pleasure).
>
> For at least a decade, maybe two, Debian has been one on the short list
> for linux distros suitable for use on servers, and has been viewed as a
> distro for knowledgeable users - and a lot of that has come from
> flexibility and a very good packaging system. Lots of important
> server-side stuff are designed for Debian first (e.g., Xen).
>
> So, apparently, that's changed.
The number and type of deployments has (greatly) increased in recent
years. Servers are up, embedded devices are up, and so are desktops. And
they all connect to each other. So yes - changed.
Don't forget Steam... enormous changes.
But nothing compared to what's coming - the rest of the world is coming
online.
> (I guess, if libreoffice is no. 2 in the
> popcon stats, desktop use now dominates. Sigh...)
>> DISCLAIMER: I'm happy with squeeze lts on servers - slowly being
>> transitioned to Wheezy where end-user requirements demand more modern
>> apps and libraries (I can't ignore end-users, ymmv).
>> In some instances I pre-populate /dev (low-resource devices), but mostly
>> I have no issues with udev. Systemd is something I'll deal with in a few
>> *years*.
>
> Actually, udev is the ONLY thing I've had issues with in over a decade
> of production use. Changed out a nic card, and everything changed -
> because udev decided to assign the new interface to some other port (or
> some such - it's been a while).
I've had that happen...
nano /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
change eth1 to eth0 and remove the line that used to read eth0
I took a while to understand udev, but I find it extremely useful in
some circumstances. Being able to treat devices with more fine-grained
control than just any old nic=eth0 can be useful if you want to treat
different devices differently rather than generically by gross type.
e.g. which nic is which? udev makes that simple.
So far I've had no problems not using udev when it's not required
(static hardware).
> A completely unexpected behavior, hard
> to track down, poorly documented.
:)
I'd say the same about most packages.
As for unexpected - I usually read the release notes before I begin
testing - no complaints so far.
I don't understand what you mean by "hard to track down". udev gives me
much more information about devices than hal and it's predecessors.
> Given that the players are the same,
> and the scope is much larger, this gives me lots of reservations about
> systemd.
I'm *very* wary of any "gut-instincts" - but I do encourage those that
swear by them to publicly journal them for future reference.
>
>>
>> [*1]
>> I suspect enough to support a tightly-focussed server OS (if you can
>> herd cats?) - maybe a Debian derivative? Strip out all the DE packages
>> and it might be do-able...
>>
>>
>
> That used to be Debian.
Not in the 20+ years I've been deploying it. It was always 'better' at
server than desktop - now it's not so bad as a 'desktop'.
But different perspectives and different requirements - I *like* to
modify systems. Debian enable me to tailor it to suit a given purpose -
it I wanted someone else to tailor it for me I'd pay them (and treat
them nice).
CentOS would fit the server focussed distro definition better (well,
limited architectures, on recent hardware...). Some people swear by it
i.e. "I've never used anything else - the others are all rubbish" ;p
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
Kind regards
--
"Debian used to be popular, but now everybody uses it"
Reply to: