Re: Camera mounting

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 10 July 2014, lee sent:
> Neither the system, nor the user should mount something.  Only root
> should do that, knowing what they're doing. 

Bullshit!

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.

George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.



-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Execute acroread with Strace - Need help

[poma]

On 10.07.2014 04:52, poma wrote:

On 09.07.2014 22:28, Mickey wrote:

F20 / KDE

Trying to run acroread in AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm and it won't
start.

...

Duplicating a thread will get you nowhere.

Perhaps you missed, in the original thread, one important fact provided by the 
software producer itself,
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-July/451167.html



Besides I think it's worth the effort to add that information to section 13,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items#Adobe_Acrobat_Reader

... and is EOL(9.5.5) therefore it is not recommended for usage. ...


poma


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Camera mounting

[Ian Malone]

On 10 July 2014 01:10, lee  wrote:
> Ian Malone  writes:
>
>> On 8 July 2014 22:33, lee  wrote:
>>> Ian Malone  writes:
>>>
 By expecting users to mount attached devices with full-fat mount usage
 you open the potential for exploits.
>>>
>>> How would that happen?  A file system is either mounted or not, or is
>>> it?
>>
>> I think I wasn't clear enough. The user doesn't get to run mount
>> themselves. The system does it for them, in a well-defined place with
>> set permissions.
>
> Neither the system, nor the user should mount something.  Only root
> should do that, knowing what they're doing.
>
>> If you're worried about security then what are the
>> actual risks?
>> - Worried about users copying data on or off. You need to disable auto
>> mounting, but you need to do a lot of other things too.
>
> When there is no auto mounting, that's one less thing you'd have to
> disable.
>
>> - Things getting mounted in dangerous places, e.g. over / or /bin or a
>> user's home directory. Doesn't happen.
>
> You trust computers too much.
>

No, I'm pragmatic in what can be trusted. If key components of your
system are compromised then what are you protecting and what are you
protecting from? Misdirected paranoia is pointless.


-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Ian Malone]

On 9 July 2014 14:15, Rahul Sundaram  wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee  wrote:
>>
>> The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in
>> that things can still be started even when they are disabled.
>
>
> Err.  no.   Before systemd, the equivalent of mask simply didn't exist and
> there was no systematic way to disable dynamically started services.  So in
> sysvinit,  if a service is D-Bus activated,  you had no good way to control
> that.   systemd for the first time harmonized that process.
>

The fact that this discussion keeps coming back and that it keeps
catching people out is something of a symptom that the names have been
chosen wrongly. Yes you could call it 'banana' when a service is off
by default and started by demand and 'handkerchief' when it is
prevented from starting altogether, but words that actually clued
people in to what they did would be more useful. You could call off on
and on off and tell people they're thick because they didn't RTFM. But
it's not helpful.
As it is, 'disabled' has turned out to be a highly confusing name for
the state it has been used to describe since its use is slightly at
odds with its everyday meaning and what turns out to be expected by
people familiar with chkconfig (which you might not expect since it
doesn't use the name itself, though its man page does choose to use
'to disable a service' to describe 'off').


-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/10/14 16:03, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 9 July 2014 14:15, Rahul Sundaram  wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, lee  wrote:
>>> The bug --- or call it misstatement if you like --- is with systemd in
>>> that things can still be started even when they are disabled.
>>
>> Err.  no.   Before systemd, the equivalent of mask simply didn't exist and
>> there was no systematic way to disable dynamically started services.  So in
>> sysvinit,  if a service is D-Bus activated,  you had no good way to control
>> that.   systemd for the first time harmonized that process.
>>
> The fact that this discussion keeps coming back and that it keeps
> catching people out is something of a symptom that the names have been
> chosen wrongly. Yes you could call it 'banana' when a service is off
> by default and started by demand and 'handkerchief' when it is
> prevented from starting altogether, but words that actually clued
> people in to what they did would be more useful. You could call off on
> and on off and tell people they're thick because they didn't RTFM. But
> it's not helpful.
> As it is, 'disabled' has turned out to be a highly confusing name for
> the state it has been used to describe since its use is slightly at
> odds with its everyday meaning and what turns out to be expected by
> people familiar with chkconfig (which you might not expect since it
> doesn't use the name itself, though its man page does choose to use
> 'to disable a service' to describe 'off').
>
>

I'm not confused.

-- 
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[lee]

Rahul Sundaram  writes:

> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, lee  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That is irrelevant.
>
>
> How?

Because disabled means disabled and not something like ondemand.

>> I don't know what you don't understand ---
>> "disabled" means disabled, i. e. cannot be started.
>
>
> No.  That isn't what it means in sysvinit.  It simply means that it isn't
> started on boot.

When the starting of something is disabled, it cannot be started.  It
doesn't matter when you try to start it.

>> Besides, dbus shouldn't start any services, that would be insane.
>
> You can't just deny reality. d-bus is how services have dynamically been
> started by a number of years.   Before systemd, there was no way other way
> to do it.

Then it has been insane for years.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[lee]

Rahul Sundaram  writes:

> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, lee  wrote:
>
>> I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what
>> "disabled" means.  It would have been very easy to fix, but they
>> declined.
>>
>> Why should I make any further bug reports about systemd when they don't
>> want to even fix important things like this?
>>
>
> I would suggest that the misunderstanding is on your part instead as noted
> in another reply.

Please look up the meaning of "disabled" in some dictionaries and ask
some arbitrary people what it means.

> However even if it weren't true,  we all get bug reports
> closed from time to time with a resolution different from what we want.
> The right approach in that case is to post to the list and try and build
> consensus and provide strong arguments to make your case.  If people agree
> with us, perhaps we can change the developers position but on the other
> hand, if we fail to build that consensus, we just agree to disagree and
> move on. If we take our balls and run home everytime someone disagrees with
> us, we can never really participate in any open source project.

First you (at least I think it was you) suggest to make bug reports
instead of discussing things on a mailing list, now you suggest the
opposite?

The bug report has been closed with a denial to fix the bug.  That's all
there is to it, with no point in trying to search for some sort of
backdoor to bring it back.  By denying to fix a bug this obvious, the
developers are beyond hope.  Try it if it pleases you to do their
bidding.

I guess I could make a fork of systemd which fixes this bug.  But nobody
would care, so why waste my time on it.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Camera mounting

[lee]

Ian Malone  writes:

>> On 10 July 2014 01:10, lee  wrote:
>
>> You trust computers too much.
>>
>
> No, I'm pragmatic in what can be trusted. If key components of your
> system are compromised then what are you protecting and what are you
> protecting from? Misdirected paranoia is pointless.

A computer doesn't need to be compromised to not work correctly or not
as expected.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[lee]

Rahul Sundaram  writes:

> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:23 PM, lee wrote:
>
>> Then they should do it again.
>>
>
> That is a Debian maintainers decision.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it again.

>> That doesn't mean that users shouldn't get to vote.
>
> It just means voting isn't how distribution choose system components.

Which doesn't mean that that it is a good way to do so.

>>   Switching to something
>
>> because there is no alternative means that it wasn't possible to make a
>> choice.  Am I to assume that all major distributions were forced to use
>> systemd?
>
>
> Forced?  This is open source software.  If distributions wanted to have
> alternatives they are free to develop one or continue maintaining things
> like ConsoleKit.  They voluntarily choose to use systemd because it was the
> best maintained choice

See, they didn't really have a choice.  Developing an alternative or
continuing to maintain alternatives requires resources which they might
not have or rather devote to something else.

>> I don't know about logind.  Why would that be required?  I can still log
>> in without just fine when systemd isn't used.
>
>
> Perhaps you should look up what logind does yourself to understand why it
> is required.  It is fairly basic information if you want to engage in a
> debate about systemd.

Again there's no argument here that speaks for systemd.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

RE: why do we use systemd?

[J.Witvliet]

-Original Message-
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org 
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Tom Horsley
Sent: woensdag 9 juli 2014 18:24
To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: why do we use systemd?

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:57:26 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> if anyone is pushing for alternatives, they should understand that 
> systemd isn't just a init system

Which is, of course, the primary thing that is wrong with it :-).

Unix/linux grew successfully for years by dividing things into small 
independent pieces and making them work on one thing well.

Systemd is now engulfing practically all of linux. A bug in one piece can make 
dozens of other things fail, and it is so large and complex that there *will* 
be bugs in pieces of it.

When there were separate bits, you could simply turn off the bits you had no 
need for.

A monolithic systemd can't be turned off or even down. In fact it has been 
instructive to watch the memory indicator in my gkrellm monitor on my not very 
big system at work.
It has been steadily moving up every fedora release.
-Original Message-

You wrote:
" Unix/linux grew successfully for years by dividing things into small 
independent pieces and making them work on one thing well."
I agree that separating things into small independent parts is truly a good 
move.

But major success factor of OpenSource software in general (not just Linux), 
was that you had the freedom to choose between several options.
I don't mind that some developpers spent their precious time on system, it is 
_their_ choice.
However, many people (not just Fedora-users/integrators, exact same feelings 
can be found on ML of other repo's) resent that any alternative is taken away.

Hans


__
Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet 
de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u 
verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat 
aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband 
houdt met risico's verbonden aan het electronisch verzenden van berichten.

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are 
not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are 
requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no 
liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the 
electronic transmission of messages.
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Camera mounting

[Ian Malone]

On 10 July 2014 09:49, lee  wrote:
> Ian Malone  writes:
>
>>> On 10 July 2014 01:10, lee  wrote:
>>
>>> You trust computers too much.
>>>
>>
>> No, I'm pragmatic in what can be trusted. If key components of your
>> system are compromised then what are you protecting and what are you
>> protecting from? Misdirected paranoia is pointless.
>
> A computer doesn't need to be compromised to not work correctly or not
> as expected.
>

The same can be said of manually mounting things every time. The
difference is that computers are good at automating things reliably,
people are not. I don't calculate all my hashes by hand either.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Balint Szigeti]

On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote:

> David Benfell  writes:
> 
> > I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
> >
> > 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
> > start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.
> 
> So far, I've seen only arguments that would support that systemd is a
> really bad idea because it's broken by design --- or should reasonably
> be designed differently.
> 
> > 2) Or, is it just that systemd is buried underneath an avalanche of
> > horrendous documentation and poorly chosen terminology?
> 
> You could look at the source to find an answer.  Perhaps it's great ---
> but I doubt it.

Seriously? Looking the source? Except developers who will dig in the
source code?
None user will dig the source code, they just will leave the
distribution or worse the all Linux area if
they can't solve their problem. I think, if the user can't find
solution, (s)he will accept it, but if there
will be too many, they just escape.

> 
> > To these, I might add a third:
> >
> > 3) Is systemd simply too large a leap to be wise? Clearly, many folks
> > in the distributions are enamored with it; they're all adopting it. As
> > is apparent here, some users like it as well (and if we succumb to a
> > false dichotomy, well, I'm not all that wild about sysvinit scripts
> > either). And a certain amount of the rebuttal to opponents seems to be
> > of the sort that we should just take the time to learn it.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're asking.  Besides, if we're supposed to learn
> it, it should have good documentation and be a good thing first.
> Otherwise it's a waste of time.
> 
> Let me add a fourth question:  What does it matter?  We're not getting
> to decide what will be used.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)


-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

NVRAM changes not persistent with efibootmgr

[Williams, Gareth]

After a frozen install while trying to make a dual-boot system I had
to hard-reboot my laptop using the power button.



 



On restarting, I was greeted with a UEFI message telling me that there
was no bootable device installed!  I quickly inserted a boot CD and
managed to boot into my installed Fedora 20 by editing the
booted CD's grub commands (thank goodness for grub's command line
completion!).



 



I therfore know that my Fedora installation (including the EFI
partition) is intact and that my crash had somehow corrupted my UEFI
NVRAM.



 



A quick check with 'efibootmgr -v' confirmed this, as it just listed
the basic 'fallback' paths (no filepaths to the Fedora installed EFI
files).



 



The simple answer was therefore to re-add the entry for Fedora and
reboot.  In order to get the correct syntax for efibootmgr I grep'd
'/var/log/anaconda.program.log'  and found:



 



    'efibootmgr -c -w -L Fedora -d /dev/sda -p 1 -l
\EFI\fedora\shim.efi'.



 



I simply escaped the back-slashes by changing them to
double-back-slashes and ran the command as root.



 



I confirmed that everything had worked using 'efibootmgr -v' again and
it showed that the entry was there, so I rebooted.



 



Unfortunately, I was greeted by the same 'no bootable device' message
as before at which point I had to use the boot CD to get back in
again.



 



To my suprise 'efibootmgr -v' didn't show the entry that I'd just
created - it had simply vanished.



 



I Googled and Googled and got nowhere.  To get out of this
predicament, I installed Fedora again in the partition I'd earmarked
for the dual boot, at which point anaconda os-probed all
partitions/installations, re-created grub's grub.cfg file and fixed
the NVRAM.  I was then able to successfully boot my laptop. 
Fortunately, there was a kernel update waiting for me, so installing
that reconfigured grub2 and my main Fedora installation was the
default in grub again.



 



While I'm now working again, there is still the issue of not being
able to alter NVRAM using 'efibootmgr' directly.



 



My question therefore is: Does anaconda do something else after
running 'efibootmgr' to make it permanent? Or: Why can anaconda update
NVRAM using efibootmgr, while I can't?



 



Thanks in advance.


-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Veli-Pekka Kestilä]

On 10.7.2014 13:30, Balint Szigeti wrote:

On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote:

David Benfell mailto:benf...@parts-unknown.org>> 
writes:

> I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
>
> 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
> start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.

So far, I've seen only arguments that would support that systemd is a
really bad idea because it's broken by design --- or should reasonably
be designed differently.

> 2) Or, is it just that systemd is buried underneath an avalanche of
> horrendous documentation and poorly chosen terminology?

You could look at the source to find an answer.  Perhaps it's great ---
but I doubt it.
Seriously? Looking the source? Except developers who will dig in the 
source code?
None user will dig the source code, they just will leave the 
distribution or worse the all Linux area if
they can't solve their problem. I think, if the user can't find 
solution, (s)he will accept it, but if there

will be too many, they just escape.


Escape where, OSX has similar thing which seems to be even less 
documented (only my impression might be wrong).
Solaris has moved something similar.  AIX has never been truly SYSV and 
needs special hardware. BSD's will work but
have their own set of fun and are geared in my experience more to people 
who like to mess with the code. And some
of them are planning to move to the thing used in OSX (or in it's 
opensource upstream). Windows also has extensive

ways to manage how processes will start in startup etc.


Maybe the thing is that world has moved forward and there is needs which 
traditional sysv init doesn't answer
anymore. And any way you feel about systemd something similar would have 
come anyway and it actually did and
people weren't happy so in came systemd instead. If there is real 
problems with systemd I am sure someone will sooner
or later fork it and do different version. That's the choice in 
free/open software it's freedom of making your own if the
current solution doesn't work for you. Nothing of this freedom is taken 
away.


It's just that those people who actually do work for getting the 
distributions out have seen that systemd is only
maintained solution at the moment. I think it's somehow telling that no 
one else is even trying to make better
solution to the problems. It doesn't mean there isn't ways to improve 
systemd (or make a replacement), it just means no one is willing to

do it.

-vpk

-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Question for Fedora users of Garmin nuvi GPS

[Paul Cartwright]

On 07/09/2014 04:52 PM, DB wrote:
>
> I've got an old Garmin for the car & an eTrex for in my pocket, I
> update them both from Open Street Maps.  The devvices come up without
> problem & the chosen maps are just copied to the SD card. 
I would be interested to know how to do that... I have an older Garmin
from 2005 that needs updating.. and I have one with lifetime maps, but
you need Windows to do it.
 

-- 
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux User #367800 and new counter #561587

-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Tom H]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Rahul Sundaram  wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> You might not need to use all of the systemd tools but its tools
>> aren't independent.
>
> That is similar to how optional features are handled in many collections.
> If you use some features,  they might pull in other requirements but the
> features themselves are optional.
>>
>> For example, Ubuntu patches logind in order to use
>> it with upstart rather than with systemd.
>
> systemd explicitly documented which interfaces they consider independent and
> which ones they don't and I linked to the document earlier. Ubuntu's use of
> logind is backporting + reimplementation of some interfaces using a shim and
> they are moving away from it to systemd itself since the reimplementation is
> lagging behind in features and functionality and the Debian move to systemd
> made it easier for them to follow that path.

I understand and agree but nonetheless maintain that we shouldn't call
systemd a "collection of tools with a shared codebase where most of
the tools are optional" since the systemd executables aren't as
independent of one another as those of util-linux and coreutils.
Although you more or less hint at this with "with a shared codebase",
most people don't.

(I use Ubuntu 14.10 on my laptop and systemd 204 is available so by
the time that it's released systemd-shim might be relegated to 14.04
LTS.)
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Regex broken??

[Heinz Diehl]

On 09.07.2014, Stephen Davies wrote: 

> 2. I hadn't noticed that all lines started with a space.

Way back in 19-something (guess it was 1993) when I poked around with
Powerbasic, I remember there was a function called trim(), which
removed the whitespace on both ends of a string :-)


-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Matthew Miller]

Everyone! Please read 



I am not kidding.

This morning, there are a dozen new messages all recycling around points
that have already been made hundreds of posts ago in this thread. Regardless
of the merit of these points, this is a vortex of echos. And, really, the
merit is dubious even when the points are good -- systemd was selected for
Fedora 15, and of course we're building 21 now. There's nothing here which
wasn't weighed *years ago*. Overwhelming threads make our mailing lists
useless to existing users and intimidating to new ones. 

It's time to stop spinning in place and work on something constructive.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora on StackExchange

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 08:46:09PM -0500, Carl Bennett wrote:
> Just trying to get this to have more visibility:
> http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/67392/fedora
> I think it could definitely benefit Fedora users and enthusiasts as a
> whole. It would be helpful to have a Q&A on Stack Exchange for Fedora
> specifically so that Fedora-specific questions can be answered. There's
> multiple reasons for supporting this, and hey even Ubuntu has its own.

This isn't the first Fedora proposal on Area51, I don't think. 

I actually think it was very unfortunate that the Ubuntu people got theirs
split off from http://unix.stackexchange.com -- the division doesn't really
help anyone. Both Fedora and Ubuntu are totally on-topic there.



-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Tom H]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:34 AM, lee  wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram  writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, lee wrote:
>>
>>> I made a bug report suggesting to fix their misunderstanding of what
>>> "disabled" means. It would have been very easy to fix, but they
>>> declined.
>>>
>>> Why should I make any further bug reports about systemd when they don't
>>> want to even fix important things like this?
>>
>> I would suggest that the misunderstanding is on your part instead as noted
>> in another reply.
>
> Please look up the meaning of "disabled" in some dictionaries and ask
> some arbitrary people what it means.

There's a difference between "disabled" and "permanently disabled"; no
need to look at a dictionary.

Did you see my earlier post about kernel module loading? [1]

A kernel module can be blacklisted but it can be loaded if need be. In
the same way:

If A depends on B and B is masked: you start A, B doesn't start and A
doesn't start.

If A depends on B and B is disabled: you start A, B starts and A starts.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-July/451640.html
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Balint Szigeti]

On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 14:09 +0300, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote:
> On 10.7.2014 13:30, Balint Szigeti wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote: 
> > 
> > > David Benfell  writes:
> > > 
> > > > I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
> > > > start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.
> > > 
> > > So far, I've seen only arguments that would support that systemd is a
> > > really bad idea because it's broken by design --- or should reasonably
> > > be designed differently.
> > > 
> > > > 2) Or, is it just that systemd is buried underneath an avalanche of
> > > > horrendous documentation and poorly chosen terminology?
> > > 
> > > You could look at the source to find an answer.  Perhaps it's great ---
> > > but I doubt it.
> > 
> > Seriously? Looking the source? Except developers who will dig in the
> > source code?
> > None user will dig the source code, they just will leave the
> > distribution or worse the all Linux area if
> > they can't solve their problem. I think, if the user can't find
> > solution, (s)he will accept it, but if there
> > will be too many, they just escape.
> 
> 
> Escape where, OSX has similar thing which seems to be even less
> documented (only my impression might be wrong). 
> Solaris has moved something similar.  AIX has never been truly SYSV
> and needs special hardware. BSD's will work but 
> have their own set of fun and are geared in my experience more to
> people who like to mess with the code. And some
> of them are planning to move to the thing used in OSX (or in it's
> opensource upstream). Windows also has extensive 
> ways to manage how processes will start in startup etc. 

That's great. Because they don't have choice we can do everything with
them. :(
It looks like, a small group of the community makes decisions 
and the other people don't have choice. No alternatives :(

> 
> 
> Maybe the thing is that world has moved forward and there is needs
> which traditional sysv init doesn't answer 
> anymore. And any way you feel about systemd something similar would
> have come anyway and it actually did and 
> people weren't happy so in came systemd instead. If there is real
> problems with systemd I am sure someone will sooner 
> or later fork it and do different version. That's the choice in
> free/open software it's freedom of making your own if the 
> current solution doesn't work for you. Nothing of this freedom is
> taken away. 
> 
> It's just that those people who actually do work for getting the
> distributions out have seen that systemd is only 
> maintained solution at the moment. I think it's somehow telling that
> no one else is even trying to make better 
> solution to the problems. It doesn't mean there isn't ways to improve
> systemd (or make a replacement), it just means no one is willing to 
> do it.
> 
> -vpk
> 


-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[poma]

On 10.07.2014 16:10, Balint Szigeti wrote:


It looks like, a small group of the community makes decisions
and the other people don't have choice. No alternatives :(


The alternative is that someone talks the same thing about you, in a parallel 
universe. :)


poma

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: why do we use systemd?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:05:03 -0400
Matthew Miller  wrote:

> Everyone! Please read 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not kidding.
> 
> This morning, there are a dozen new messages all recycling around
> points that have already been made hundreds of posts ago in this
> thread. Regardless of the merit of these points, this is a vortex of
> echos. And, really, the merit is dubious even when the points are
> good -- systemd was selected for Fedora 15, and of course we're
> building 21 now. There's nothing here which wasn't weighed *years
> ago*. Overwhelming threads make our mailing lists useless to existing
> users and intimidating to new ones. 
> 
> It's time to stop spinning in place and work on something
> constructive.

Hey Folks. 

I'm not a usual moderator of this list, but Matt asked me to step in
and at least kill this thread. 

Can we get back to: 

"community assistance, encouragement, and advice for Fedora users. "

Thanks, 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

how to accurately test internet upload & download speed

[CS_DBA]

All;

Is there a accurate way of truly testing what upload and download speeds 
i'm getting?


I'm running Fedora 20

Thanks in advance...


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: how to accurately test internet upload & download speed

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:34:28AM -0600, CS_DBA wrote:
> Is there a accurate way of truly testing what upload and download
> speeds i'm getting?
> I'm running Fedora 20

I've found http://www.speedtest.net/ to be pretty decent. But if you have a
remote server, you can do it yourself pretty easily with the `ttcp` command.

`yum install ttcp`, and then run it with -r for receive mode on one system
and -t for transmit mode on the other end.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: how to accurately test internet upload & download speed

[poma]

On 10.07.2014 17:38, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:34:28AM -0600, CS_DBA wrote:

Is there a accurate way of truly testing what upload and download
speeds i'm getting?
I'm running Fedora 20


I've found http://www.speedtest.net/ to be pretty decent. But if you have a
remote server, you can do it yourself pretty easily with the `ttcp` command.

`yum install ttcp`, and then run it with -r for receive mode on one system
and -t for transmit mode on the other end.



Last time I used this tool.
And it's all on one page! :)
https://iperf.fr

and

SpeedOf.Me is an HTML5 Internet speed test. No Flash or Java needed! :)
http://speedof.me

poma


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora on StackExchange

[Sudhir Khanger]

On Jul 10, 2014 9:31 AM, "Rahul Sundaram"  wrote

>>
http://askbot.org/en/question/12569/html-formatting-not-provided-in-rss-feed/?comment=12574#comment-12574
>
>
> Sure.  There are a number of enhancements we need from askbot. If anyone
is interested in Django/Python programming, your contributions to askbot
would be most welcome.  Ping me offlist for more specific details.
>
> Rahul

I don't know Python. But since I am learning Android I do think about
working on an Android app for Askbot.

-
Sudhir.
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: how to accurately test internet upload & download speed

[JD]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Matthew Miller 
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:34:28AM -0600, CS_DBA wrote:
> > Is there a accurate way of truly testing what upload and download
> > speeds i'm getting?
> > I'm running Fedora 20
>
> I've found http://www.speedtest.net/ to be pretty decent. But if you have
a
> remote server, you can do it yourself pretty easily with the `ttcp`
command.
>
> `yum install ttcp`, and then run it with -r for receive mode on one system
> and -t for transmit mode on the other end.


Very useful tools, especially while at hotspot cafe's.
Are there any free public servers for ttcp and iperf?

Thanx!
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re[2]: running instance on OpenStack Folsom release

[Denis Betivu]

 Patrick, thank you, I'll try your idea-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

F21 Cant login

[Mike Chambers]

Just installed F21 via NFS, using KDE as my workstation.  It booted up to
the login screen, but it won't login.  Have tried both GUI and terminal and
neither will login, whether regular user or root.

Mike Chambers

-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: F21 Cant login

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:07:36 -0500
"Mike Chambers"  wrote:

> Just installed F21 via NFS, using KDE as my workstation.  It booted
> up to the login screen, but it won't login.  Have tried both GUI and
> terminal and neither will login, whether regular user or root.

Since f21 is a prerelease you may want to subscribe to the test list: 

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

In this case you are likely hitting: 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116450

try booting with 'enforcing=0' 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Question for Fedora users of Garmin nuvi GPS (SOLVED)

[Steven Ulrick]

> Just as an added note: To get access to the usb devices with virtualbox the
> user has to have the group vboxusers selected. Otherwise they don't get
> access to usb devices.

Hello, Everyone
In the USB settings for my Windows 7 virtual machine, this item was
unchecked: "Enable USB 2.0 (EHCI) Controller"  The other USB box was
checked, though.  So, when I checked the box and clicked "OK",
GarminExpress finally recognized my GPS, and it is now fully updated!
As soon as I applied that setting, I also got a "Found new hardware"
wizard from Windows!  Now this kind of thing won't happen to me again.

Steven P. Ulrick
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

removing plymouth

[Balint Szigeti]

hello

Can somebody tell me what would happen if I remove Plymouth packages? I
know it handles the boot screen and the user interaction during boot.
Does it mean, if I remove this package I can't examine what happened
during the boot or I can not boot?

Balint
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: NVRAM changes not persistent with efibootmgr

[Chris Murphy]

On Jul 10, 2014, at 4:56 AM, "Williams, Gareth"  
wrote:

> My question therefore is: Does anaconda do something else after running 
> 'efibootmgr' to make it permanent? Or: Why can anaconda update NVRAM using 
> efibootmgr, while I can't?

'no bootable device' sounds suspiciously like a BIOS message. It's not a 
failure message I'd expect from an UEFI systems due to how it does fallback - 
or at least should. It should arrive at worst to EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI which 
ought to be shim.efi, which with help from fallback.efi ought to write a new 
entry in NVRAM for itself.

NVRAM garbage collection is a weak area of UEFI. Some of them are slow to do 
what they're told, some of them barf if they're told to do too many things too 
quickly. There's all sorts of non-deterministic failure here. And then there's 
also kernel versions. efibootmgr is a userspace program that tells the kernel 
to do something to NVRAM.

Apple has dealt with this forever with CMOS and NVRAM. Even before moving to 
EFI ~10 years ago Macs had parameter RAM for storing things like volume, 
brightness, and which disk to boot off of. All Macs since practically the dawn 
of time have the same keyboard shortcut to "zap" it, effectively clearing it 
entirely.

Anyway, the problem you're facing is it's unclear whether it's a firmware bug 
or a kernel bug. I'd make sure the firmware is updated. See if users are having 
problems with that version if it's already at the latest version and was 
recently posted. And then use newer kernels and see if the behavior changes - 
the Fedora 20 media is using kernel 3.11.10, and 3.16 is mainline. So it might 
be worth grabbing a Fedora 21 pre-alpha build to see if you get different 
results making NVRAM modifications with efibootmgr.


Chris Murphy
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: NVRAM changes not persistent with efibootmgr

[Gareth Williams]

On 11/07/14 06:24, Chris Murphy wrote:

On Jul 10, 2014, at 4:56 AM, "Williams, Gareth"  
wrote:


My question therefore is: Does anaconda do something else after running 
'efibootmgr' to make it permanent? Or: Why can anaconda update NVRAM using 
efibootmgr, while I can't?

'no bootable device' sounds suspiciously like a BIOS message. It's not a 
failure message I'd expect from an UEFI systems due to how it does fallback - 
or at least should. It should arrive at worst to EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI which 
ought to be shim.efi, which with help from fallback.efi ought to write a new 
entry in NVRAM for itself.
Why would it come up in 'BIOS' mode?  I've not changed any settings on 
the laptop to enable that - unless my laptop's firmware automatically 
does it when it can't find any EFI to boot.  But as you said that it 
should arrive at BOOTX64.EFI (which is present) then even that theory 
falls at the first hurdle.

Anyway, the problem you're facing is it's unclear whether it's a firmware bug 
or a kernel bug. I'd make sure the firmware is updated. See if users are having 
problems with that version if it's already at the latest version and was 
recently posted. And then use newer kernels and see if the behavior changes - 
the Fedora 20 media is using kernel 3.11.10, and 3.16 is mainline.
I didn't boot from the CD image - I merely used the EFI and GRUB from 
the CD, then edited the GRUB line to point to boot from (hd0,gpt5) and 
so on, so that it booted my regular Fedora 20 install.  That was running 
3.14.9 at the time - it's now running 3.15.3.

So it might be worth grabbing a Fedora 21 pre-alpha build to see if you get 
different results making NVRAM modifications with efibootmgr.
 When I experimented last night (since the kernel upgrade) efibootmgr 
changes seem to work!  That proves your kernel theory, or it's something 
else completely unrelated.
Thanks for you reply. All's well that ends well, as they say.  And I 
learnt something in the process.


Gareth
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: removing plymouth

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/11/14 13:11, Balint Szigeti wrote:
> Can somebody tell me what would happen if I remove Plymouth packages? I know 
> it handles the boot screen and the user interaction during boot.
> Does it mean, if I remove this package I can't examine what happened during 
> the boot or I can not boot?

You'll be able to boot just fine.  You'll just see all the "OK"s scrolling by 
as the various components are started.

Not sure what you're thinking the gain will be to remove it.

-- 
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: removing plymouth

[Balint Szigeti]

On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 13:41 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:

> On 07/11/14 13:11, Balint Szigeti wrote:
> > Can somebody tell me what would happen if I remove Plymouth packages? I 
> > know it handles the boot screen and the user interaction during boot.
> > Does it mean, if I remove this package I can't examine what happened during 
> > the boot or I can not boot?
> 
> You'll be able to boot just fine.  You'll just see all the "OK"s scrolling by 
> as the various components are started.
> 
> Not sure what you're thinking the gain will be to remove it.
> 
> -- 
> If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.

$ systemd-analyze blame
 10.661s systemd-cryptsetup@luks\x2d9ea31b69\x2d8769\x2d4bf1
\x2d897d\x2d67ecf8d4b0be.service
  9.862s plymouth-quit-wait.service
  9.743s accounts-daemon.service
  8.427s firewalld.service
improving the boot time :)
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: removing plymouth

[Ed Greshko]

On 07/11/14 14:27, Balint Szigeti wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 13:41 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 07/11/14 13:11, Balint Szigeti wrote:
>> > Can somebody tell me what would happen if I remove Plymouth packages? I 
>> > know it handles the boot screen and the user interaction during boot.
>> > Does it mean, if I remove this package I can't examine what happened 
>> > during the boot or I can not boot?
>>
>> You'll be able to boot just fine.  You'll just see all the "OK"s scrolling 
>> by as the various components are started.
>>
>> Not sure what you're thinking the gain will be to remove it.
>>
>> -- 
>> If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
> $ systemd-analyze blame
>  10.661s 
> systemd-cryptsetup@luks\x2d9ea31b69\x2d8769\x2d4bf1\x2d897d\x2d67ecf8d4b0be.service
>   9.862s plymouth-quit-wait.service
>   9.743s accounts-daemon.service
>   8.427s firewalld.service
> improving the boot time :)
>
>

Not sure what plymouth-quit-wait.service isbut on one of my systems

5ms plymouth-quit-wait.service



-- 
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: removing plymouth

[Fred Erickson]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:27:51 +0100
Balint Szigeti  wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 13:41 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> 
> > On 07/11/14 13:11, Balint Szigeti wrote:
> > > Can somebody tell me what would happen if I remove Plymouth
> > > packages? I know it handles the boot screen and the user
> > > interaction during boot. Does it mean, if I remove this package I
> > > can't examine what happened during the boot or I can not boot?
> > 
> > You'll be able to boot just fine.  You'll just see all the "OK"s
> > scrolling by as the various components are started.
> > 
> > Not sure what you're thinking the gain will be to remove it.
> > 
> > -- 
> > If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
> 
> $ systemd-analyze blame
>  10.661s systemd-cryptsetup@luks\x2d9ea31b69\x2d8769\x2d4bf1
> \x2d897d\x2d67ecf8d4b0be.service
>   9.862s plymouth-quit-wait.service
>   9.743s accounts-daemon.service
>   8.427s firewalld.service
> improving the boot time :)

$ systemd-analyze blame
 37.724s plymouth-quit-wait.service
 29.148s accounts-daemon.service
 27.960s firewalld.service
 27.861s avahi-daemon.service
 27.720s chronyd.service

Just to make you feel better about your system :)
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org