Re: systemdq [Solved]
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 02:57:19PM -0700, ghe wrote:
> On 12/29/19 10:21 AM, Reco wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 09:40:29AM -0700, ghe wrote:
> >> Somebody just forgot to enable SSH while preparing the Raspian Buster
> >> release, it looks like.
> >
> > Nope. It was deliberate - [1] (note the "ssh" part).
>
> Amazing. I'm a self-taught *nix geek, but I've never seen a release
> without SSH.
Ubuntu folks used to ship their desktop distribution without a ssh
daemon. Many LiveCD distributions do the same.
> Not since I figured out what SSH is, anyway. Makes me
> question the sanity of the otherwise quite rational 'Pi folks.
If you ship a distribution with a well-known username/password pair,
then giving a remote access to a user by default is not a good idea.
Especially if your distribution is "user-firendly".
> > Reading error messages is not a viable substitute to reading the
> > documentation. At least the distribution one.
>
> Look. The problem was with the lame systemd error message. It didn't
> provide enough info to figure out how to correct my action. And I did
> look for dox. I looked for systemd commands, and didn't find anything
> useful. That's why I asked the list. What I needed was a little help
> from somebody who knows systemd.
Systemd is an enigmatic beast, written by enterprise folks (RH/IBM) for
the enterprise folks to solve enterprise needs.
So of course error messages told just about anything but the problem you
were facing.
> When I try to use a CLI program from the 'apt' collection as a user, the
> error message says 'Are you root?' -- useful information.
... and "apt" was written by the humans for the humans. The difference
is obvious.
> If the systemd message had said something like "A unit file isn't
> enabled' or something like that, I probably would have found the
> solution. After a couple responses from the list, I had an idea of how
> to look up a solution. And in 5 minutes, all was well.
See above.
> > Small "problems" such as this "ssh-sshd" discrepancy is the reason
> > Raspbian is frowned upon here. It's close to Debian yes, except for such
> > small yet fundamental parts, which makes it different to Debian.
>
> I didn't know that. They claim it's the same (with a peculiar /boot
> directory), and in the time I've been using 'Pis, I've never seen one do
> anything different from a Debian box.
The people see ".deb" file extension and think "gee, it's Debian".
It's not.
Reco
Reply to: