On 11.10.16 22:30, Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:14:29PM +1100, [email protected] wrote: > > > > +1 > > -1, actually. > > I mostly gave in. I converted two of my home systems to systemd a few days ago > (including my primary desktop/server machine). I'm hoping it's easier to work > around systemd'ѕ bugs and annoyances than to have to deal with the (expected > but unwanted) future of packages having sysvinit support dropped. certainly > less work than converting every new debian system I build to sysvinit or > openrc or something.
I'm open to alternatives to Debian, but systemd's grasp is spreading, so those options are also dwindling. :( ... > (this is, of courtse, one of the reasons I dislike journald. logs should be > plain text, so you can access them without specialised tools. ... > This is another systemd annnoyance, everything and anything that goes wrong > during boot (no matter how trivial) is an excuse for it to twiddle stars for > either 90 seconds or 5 minutes....instead of just giving me a shell instantly > so i can fix it. > > And there doesn't seem to be any obvious keystroke to tell systemd to stop > with the damn stars and either continue or give me a shell. All of that, particularly the totally perverse and unnecessary F-Users moronic act of denying standard access to the log, is prima facie evidence of intent to M$ Linux for monetisation by corporates. > > > (Though I'm not sure that systemd's rapacious appetite for monolithic > > hegemony does a lot more than stultify its own development. In > > any ecological niche, more agile competitors will tend to gain > > ascendancy. I look forward to that, and will do what I can to avoid > > systemd - as I would any unwieldy dinosaur. If that involves avoiding > > gnome, then that's no loss.) > > I don't use gnome either. in fact they're the originators of The Gnome Problem > that systemd has adopted (which is jwz's CADT definition plus a huge dose of > "fuck you, you just don't understand our glorious vision and you're not our > target audience anyway") I see here: https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/UkoAaLDpF4i that Linus Torvalds is also not in the target audience. Those culpable of producing gnome are also heading M$-ward in pursuit of the lowest common denominator in users, apparently. (Fine, but why remove existing advanced functionality in that pursuit?) > I used to use a few gnome apps but they've all been uglified with hard-coded > gnome title-bars and buttons and inscrutable hieroglyph menus etc that they're > hideous on other WMs or DEs like KDE. > > I can't tell if that's a deliberate FU to users/devs of other environments or > if they just don't give a damn about them. The now dated version of LXDE I'm runing on the laptop suits me fine. > Evince was the last gnome app I used, and i've replaced that with qpdview, > epfview, and okular, each of which has its good points and bad points - > e.g. epdfview doesn't do tabs or even multiple windows, qpdfview does tabs > nicely but not multi-window, and okular has excellent render-caching, support > multiple windows, but doesn't do tabs. they're not the only pros and cons but > they're the most obvious. you can sort of make epdfview do multi-window, but > only by starting another instance and then browsing all the way to the file > you want to open. I don't recall what annoyed me about evince, but I've happily used gqview for a long time. It now protests that it should be called geeqie, but who cares, so long as it still works as before. Mind you, I just look at one image at the time, scrolling up and down the directory listing. No fancy stuff. > > > And, of course, Vi is also a dinosaur, displaced by Vim with > > "nocompatible" set. > > vi's still quite usable. I install plain old nvi (or vim-tiny) on lots of > systems (well, mostly containers and some VMs), it's just vim without the > frills...the really important stuff works the same. Maybe. It would be painful, though, to lose folding. And Vi probably doesn't support spellchecking. And ... > > The coming and passing of systemd will in hindsight be seen as a storm > > in a teacup, I suspect. (Not comparable with the couple of hours after > > one can only hope. but probably not. i think it's a one way trip, and once > it's cemented it's stranglehold on linux the effort required to escape systemd > will be too great. That sounds like a black hole - one that'll suck in the whole box and dice in the end. Then there'll only be M$ and L$, and freedom will be lost. Erik _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
