On 04/24/2017 11:52 AM, Warren Young wrote:
On Apr 24, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
James' point isn't the hardware cost, it's the people cost for retraining.
Unless you’ve hired monkeys so that you must train them to do their tasks by
rote, that is a soft cost, not a hard cost.
Doll
On Mon, April 24, 2017 10:52 am, Warren Young wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> James' point isn't the hardware cost, it's the people cost for
>> retraining.
>
> Unless youâve hired monkeys so that you must train them to do their
tasks by rote, that is a soft cost, not a
On Apr 24, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> James' point isn't the hardware cost, it's the people cost for retraining.
Unless you’ve hired monkeys so that you must train them to do their tasks by
rote, that is a soft cost, not a hard cost. If you’ve hired competent IT
staff, they will
On 04/20/2017 05:55 PM, Warren Young wrote:
... I find that most hardware is ready to fall over by the time the
CentOS that was installed on it drops out of support anyway.
...
James' point isn't the hardware cost, it's the people cost for
retraining. In many ways the Fedora treadmill is eas
On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:33 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> When a vendor ... fundamentally changes the way the administration
> of an operating system is presented
I’ve gotten the sense from this other part of the thread that the answer to my
question, “What are you moving to?” is FreeBSD.
If you
On Apr 19, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:21 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, April 17, 2017 17:13, Warren Young wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I’ll remind the list that one of the *prior* times the systemd
>>> topic came up, I was the one reminding people th
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:33:30AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Red Hat, again in my sole opinion, increasingly appears to me to be
> emulating another company notorious for shuffling the user interface
> to little evident purpose other than profit. That is good business
> for them. It is not g
>
> Think about what that would take in terms of man hours to accomplish
> moving from EL6 to 7. And moving from 5 to 6 was not much better.
> This is just too expensive to repeat every three years.
So why do it? There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking with EL6
for a long time, certain
On Wed, April 19, 2017 16:22, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> Apple has had massively disruptive changes on OS X and iOS. Windows
> has had a fairly disruptive set of changes in Windows 10. About the
> only things that don't change are industrial OS's.
>
I have no idea how this reference applies to my e
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:21 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Mon, April 17, 2017 17:13, Warren Young wrote:
>
>>
>> Also, I’ll remind the list that one of the *prior* times the systemd
>> topic came up, I was the one reminding people that most of our jobs
>> summarize as “Cope with change.â€
On Mon, April 17, 2017 17:13, Warren Young wrote:
>
> Also, Iâll remind the list that one of the *prior* times the systemd
> topic came up, I was the one reminding people that most of our jobs
> summarize as âCope with change.â
>
At some point 'coping with change' is discovered to consume
On Apr 15, 2017, at 12:19 AM, Anthony K wrote:
>
> Also, there's a lot of people moving to FreeBSD - but it appears that the
> grass isn't greener there either as they are now trialling OpenRC.
You appear to have misunderstood my post.
First, TrueOS is not FreeBSD. TrueOS is to FreeBSD as Ubu
On Sun, 2017-04-16 at 18:25 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> Yes. And despite what people think, those agencies don't have super
> powers. They have tools to help them, and lots of resources, but
> nothing out of the ordinary.
Untrue. They are in advance of mainstream developments. Spying has
existed
On 04/16/2017 03:53 AM, ken wrote:
And, yes, the exploits also include more than a few against linux. Go
to their site and look under vault7. Or search for "linux" or
"redhat"... you'll get hundreds of hits. Here's just one:
https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles4/documents/FinSpy-3.10-User-Manual.d
> Indeed. I think the assertion "OSS is somehow safer because of community
> audit" is a logical fallacy. How would one go about "auditing" in the first
> place?
There are tools to audit source code for problems - OSS is safer
*because* the source is available and can be audited.
> Even if the
On Sun, 2017-04-16 at 06:53 -0400, ken wrote:
> On 04/15/2017 04:46 AM, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > Not wishing to extend this thread further, but ...
> >
> > > There are conspiracy theories out there that the NSA is involved with
> > > bringing systemd to Linux so they can have easy access to *"unknown
On 04/16/2017 06:51 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
There is no doubt that most security agencies have a long list of zero-
day exploits in their toolbox - I would hazard to suggest that they
wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't! But I seriously doubt they
would commission exploitable code in so
>
> There is no doubt that most security agencies have a long list of zero-
>> day exploits in their toolbox - I would hazard to suggest that they
>> wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't! But I seriously doubt they
>> would commission exploitable code in something that is openly
>> auditable.
On Apr 16, 2017, at 6:53 AM, ken wrote:
> Years ago it was revealed that one of the linux developers inserted an
> exploit into the gcc code which, when the login code was compiled, would give
> him access to any system running it, effectively every linux system. This
> exploit was in the linu
On 04/15/2017 04:46 AM, Pete Biggs wrote:
Not wishing to extend this thread further, but ...
There are conspiracy theories out there that the NSA is involved with
bringing systemd to Linux so they can have easy access to *"unknown"*
bugs - aka backdoors - to all Linux installations using system
Not wishing to extend this thread further, but ...
> There are conspiracy theories out there that the NSA is involved with
> bringing systemd to Linux so they can have easy access to *"unknown"*
> bugs - aka backdoors - to all Linux installations using systemd *[1]*.
They're conspiracy theori
On 09/04/17 14:39, Anthony K wrote:
So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
Thanks for all those that responded. systemd still appears to be a sore
topic.
systemd is still coping a whole
On 04/09/2017 12:39 AM, Anthony K wrote:
So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
So, the hornets are swarming.
But to answer your question: None of the above. If I want to run
CentOS
On 04/12/17 22:02, Always Learning wrote:
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 22:45 +0200, Nicolas Kovacs a écrit:
On my Slackware servers (no systemd, no funny network interface names),
I just edit /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and switch eth0
and eth1 (and eth2 etc.) if needed.
Keep It Simple
On 04/10/2017 05:17 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
>> eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
>> *any* system you're administering?
> if I have a Intel gi
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 22:45 +0200, Nicolas Kovacs a écrit:
> On my Slackware servers (no systemd, no funny network interface names),
> I just edit /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and switch eth0
> and eth1 (and eth2 etc.) if needed.
>
> Keep It Simple.
Un bon idea !
Ich auch
Ikki ook
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 15:38 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> At home, I'm staying on CentOS 6 until it EoLs.
Production and development +1
Then FreeBSD ?
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.
___
CentOS mai
Andrew Holway wrote:
>>
>> I think the points been made, can we all move along and let this thread
>> be.
>>
>
> SystemD RULES!
>
> :D
systemd may be worse than Sean Spicer (You *did* read the news
yesterday eve, right?)
mark
___
CentOS mailing
Why don't we discuss something ***less*** controversial,
like politics or religion?
- Original Message -
From: "Karanbir Singh"
To: "centos"
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:19:43 AM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll
On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>
> I think the points been made, can we all move along and let this thread be.
>
SystemD RULES!
:D
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
I think the points been made, can we all move along and let this thread be.
--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 |
On 04/11/2017 07:09 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2017-04-11, Gordon Messmer wrote:
You also don't have the flexibility to replace the kernel. Or glibc.
But you do, don't you? It'll take you months to replace them, or years
to rewrite, but you*can* do it.
The same is true of systemd, which
On Tue, April 11, 2017 9:09 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2017-04-11, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>> You also don't have the flexibility to replace the kernel. Or glibc.
>
> But you do, don't you? It'll take you months to replace them, or years
> to rewrite, but you *can* do it.
I agree. We had on
On 2017-04-11, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> You also don't have the flexibility to replace the kernel. Or glibc.
But you do, don't you? It'll take you months to replace them, or years
to rewrite, but you *can* do it. That is the freedom that open source
software provides that proprietary OSes do
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 05:11:25PM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> On Tue, April 11, 2017 4:41 pm, Warren Young wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> >>
> >> (though they're talking of trying OpenRC)
> >
> > Not just talking. TrueOS, neé PC-BSD, now runs on OpenRC.
>
On Tue, April 11, 2017 4:41 pm, Warren Young wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
>>
>> (though they're talking of trying OpenRC)
>
> Not just talking. TrueOS, neé PC-BSD, now runs on OpenRC.
>
> So let me tell you about how my recent TrueOS server upgrade broke
> virtual
On Apr 11, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
>
> (though they're talking of trying OpenRC)
Not just talking. TrueOS, neé PC-BSD, now runs on OpenRC.
So let me tell you about how my recent TrueOS server upgrade broke virtually
all of my services on the TrueOS server, roached the X config
On 11/04/17 17:02, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> On 04/11/2017 07:50 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
>>> I'd much rather have a bash script to look at-- and manually step
>>> through.
>>
>> Is that a joke? Bash is an almighty impenetrable nightmare. I've been
>> doing
>> *nix for nearly 10 years and *still*
Similar. When user jobs can run for a couple of months you can't just
do a reboot every few days. Yum makes doing updates easy, but that can
bring another problem: I've seen people do "yum update" multiple times
and not realise that they need to reboot.
On 11/04/17 19:23, Pete Biggs wrote:
>
>>
On Tue, April 11, 2017 1:23 pm, Pete Biggs wrote:
>
>>
>> Years uptime, wow! What do you do when security update for kernel or
>> glibc
>> is released? These come as often as once every 45 days in my
>> observation.
>>
> They're non-exposed hosts doing very specific things - think internal
> netwo
>
> Years uptime, wow! What do you do when security update for kernel or glibc
> is released? These come as often as once every 45 days in my observation.
>
They're non-exposed hosts doing very specific things - think internal
network with an air-gap to the internet.
P.
On Tue, April 11, 2017 12:43 pm, Pete Biggs wrote:
>
>> I just read through this thread, and I must say I'm a bit worried, to
>> the point that I'm asking myself: is CentOS still as reliable as it was?
>
> Yes.
>
>> This is not a rhetorical question, but a real one. On my Slackware
>> servers, I'm
Le 11/04/2017 à 19:43, Pete Biggs a écrit :
> Look, CentOS is a RHEL clone, RH make money out of this and they aren't
> going to produce an OS that is flaky. If they did, no one would use it.
That was my initial thought. Thanks for confirming it.
Cheers,
Niki
--
Microlinux - Solutions informat
> I just read through this thread, and I must say I'm a bit worried, to
> the point that I'm asking myself: is CentOS still as reliable as it was?
Yes.
> This is not a rhetorical question, but a real one. On my Slackware
> servers, I'm hosting a few dozen websites, various platforms for schools
On 04/11/2017 10:36 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/11/2017 10:16 AM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
I just read through this thread, and I must say I'm a bit worried, to
the point that I'm asking myself: is CentOS still as reliable as it was?
Yes. I've been very happy with release 7 across hundreds o
On 04/11/2017 10:16 AM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
I just read through this thread, and I must say I'm a bit worried, to
the point that I'm asking myself: is CentOS still as reliable as it was?
Yes. I've been very happy with release 7 across hundreds of servers and
dozens of configurations.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:11:19PM -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> I feel like this conversation has reached the "lets just keep
> repeating FUD about systemd" stage and probably won't progress in a
> useful direction.
>
> Maybe we should just jump right to the end that we always have each
> tim
Le 11/04/2017 à 18:11, Jonathan Billings a écrit :
> Maybe we should just jump right to the end that we always have each
> time this comes up. systemd is the death of linux and you're leaving
> for FreeBSD/devuan/whatever. Lets just move along now.
I've been using CentOS 5.x almost exclusively f
On 04/11/2017 09:48 AM, Leroy Tennison wrote:
Interesting that you should cite Stallman because freedom is an issue here,
we've been reduced to Microsoft when it comes to init. We've lost most of our
flexibility with no option to choose piecemeal what we want and don't want.
You also don't
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:24:11AM -0700, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> Well, sorta yes and sorta no Jonathan. Yes, in that I've moved my
> personal systems to Linux distros that don't use systemd.
>
> No in the it's not "FUD"... The complaints about the code and
> development are facts. Not alternati
Holway"
To: "centos"
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 9:50:02 AM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll
>
> I'd much rather have a bash script to look at-- and manually step through.
Is that a joke? Bash is an almighty impenetrable nightmare. I've been doing
*ni
Interesting, I'm going to have to look into this.
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Billings"
To: "centos"
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 8:32:49 AM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:02:56AM -0500, Leroy Tennison wrote:
> T
On 04/11/2017 09:11 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:02:45AM -0700, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
How about over 30 and it took me a week? No, I don't carry a CS
degree or cert of any kind either, just some high school.
For me, systemd has been an absolute nightmare of unexpected
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:11 -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote:
Maybe we should just jump right to the end that we always have each
> time this comes up. systemd is the death of linux and you're leaving
> for FreeBSD/devuan/whatever. Lets just move along now.
+1
__
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 09:02:45AM -0700, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> How about over 30 and it took me a week? No, I don't carry a CS
> degree or cert of any kind either, just some high school.
>
> For me, systemd has been an absolute nightmare of unexpected reboots
> and non-transparently broken pro
On 04/11/2017 07:50 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
I'd much rather have a bash script to look at-- and manually step through.
Is that a joke? Bash is an almighty impenetrable nightmare. I've been doing
*nix for nearly 10 years and *still* am unable to read anything vaguely
complicated in bash where
>
> most scripts are perfectly clear.
This is the Richard Stallman assumption:
He assumes that the average normal person is able to program Fortran 77 and
Lisp and are able to spend inordinate amounts of time debugging and getting
obscure OSS software packages working because using Skype and oth
Andrew Holway wrote:
>>
>> I'd much rather have a bash script to look at-- and manually step
>> through.
>
Same here.
>
> Is that a joke? Bash is an almighty impenetrable nightmare. I've been
> doing *nix for nearly 10 years and *still* am unable to read anything
vaguely
> complicated in bash wher
Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:02:56AM -0500, Leroy Tennison wrote:
>> This does concern me, another post referred to the heavy-handed way
>> in which systemd has been implemented and I totally agree. "You
>> will conform" - no exceptions. What I fear is that we will lose t
>
> I'd much rather have a bash script to look at-- and manually step through.
Is that a joke? Bash is an almighty impenetrable nightmare. I've been doing
*nix for nearly 10 years and *still* am unable to read anything vaguely
complicated in bash whereas I can write fairly decent python after 6
On 04/11/2017 09:10 AM, Leroy Tennison wrote:
Another huge concern: It breaks, someone else has to fix it because it's in the
C source - after it reaches a high enough priority. At least with scripts you
could conceivably hack it. From what I've read there is some ability to get
systemd to d
On Tue, April 11, 2017 8:12 am, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Sun, April 9, 2017 00:39, Anthony K wrote:
>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>
>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>> First, it is ridiculed.
>> Second, it is violently opposed.
>> Third, it is accepted as bei
On 04/11/2017 07:42 AM, m...@tdiehl.org wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, ken wrote:
And I have to wonder, why in /usr/lib/systemd/system/ is there a file
named -.slice ?? Didn't anyone see a problem with this...? or
countless possible problems? Doesn't instill confidence.
Well wonder no more!! S
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:02:56AM -0500, Leroy Tennison wrote:
> This does concern me, another post referred to the heavy-handed way
> in which systemd has been implemented and I totally agree. "You
> will conform" - no exceptions. What I fear is that we will lose the
> ability to control the na
Leroy Tennison writes:
> Another huge concern: It breaks, someone else has to fix it because it's in
> the C source - after it reaches a high enough priority. At least with
> scripts you could conceivably hack it. From what I've read there is some
> ability to get systemd to defer to a script,
On Sun, April 9, 2017 00:39, Anthony K wrote:
> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>
> "All truth passes through three stages.
> First, it is ridiculed.
> Second, it is violently opposed.
> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
>
> I must admit that I skipped through the fi
have to become an expert at that.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Ferrell"
To: "centos"
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 7:13:55 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll
On 04/10/2017 03:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
>> I must admit that I skipped through the f
peaking from their ivory tower).
- Original Message -
From: "John R Pierce"
To: "centos"
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 4:36:48 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll
On 4/10/2017 2:27 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> Without intent to contradict... I really would
> er, I meant to add that the 09: seems to correspond with the enp9s* and the
> 0a: seems to correspond with the enp10s*
I wrote myself a little script that uses /sys/class/net, ethtool and lspci to
identify which interface corresponds to which bus slot/lspci entry.
On 04/11/2017 05:39 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
On 04/11/2017 05:30 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:09:01AM -0400, Pete Orrall wrote:
And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be
called? Do
names
On 04/11/2017 05:30 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:09:01AM -0400, Pete Orrall wrote:
And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called? Do
names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone*
> But the consistent device naming in Linux comes from slot index
> numbers, physical location and even the MAC (if so configured), and
> not what driver it uses.
>
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Networking_Guide/ch-Consistent_Network_Device_Naming.h
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:09:01AM -0400, Pete Orrall wrote:
> > And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
> > manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called? Do
> > names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware
> > engineer?
>
> As so
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:09:01AM -0400, Pete Orrall wrote:
> > And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
> > manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called? Do
> > names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware
> > engineer?
>
> As so
> And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
> manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called? Do
> names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware
> engineer?
As someone else had stated, it's not related to SystemD but
Fedora/RHEL has ch
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, ken wrote:
And I have to wonder, why in /usr/lib/systemd/system/ is there a file named
-.slice ?? Didn't anyone see a problem with this...? or countless possible
problems? Doesn't instill confidence.
Well wonder no more!! Simply look it up in the man pages. It is docume
On 04/10/2017 08:13 PM, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
On 04/10/2017 03:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the
simpl
On 04/10/2017 03:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the
simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
S
On 4/10/2017 3:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote:
And I remember when these new fangled init scripts first appeared - boy
did everyone find them confusing and hated them.
indeed. BSD just used /etc/rc.conf and /etc/rc.d/{servicename}
then AT&T SystemV came along with the whole levels and init.d an
> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the
> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>
> So, at which stage are you in
On 4/10/2017 2:27 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Without intent to contradict... I really would prefer them numbered
according to their bus address. Not in the order (or reverse order - as it
was once) of them been discovered. And if you add hardware with bus
address between those of eth0 and eth1, yo
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
>> eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
>> *any* system you're administering?
>
> if I have a Intel gigE interface and a Mar
On Mon, April 10, 2017 4:17 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
>> eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
>> *any* system you're administering?
>
> if I have
On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
*any* system you're administering?
if I have a Intel gigE interface and a Marvell 10g interfaces, which one
Jonathan Billings wrote:
>> And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
>> manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called?
>> Do names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware
>> engineer?
>
> Unrelated to systemd. This actually started
Le 10/04/2017 à 21:57, Jonathan Billings a écrit :
> Having consistent device names is helpful when you've got more than
> one NIC and you don't want to rely on the order in which the network
> driver is loaded to define the interface name.
On my Slackware servers (no systemd, no funny network int
I know this is systemd-punching day, but at least get your information
straight.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 03:38:03PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>Why change names, such as rpc-idmapd to
> nfs-idmapd?
Unrelated to systemd, as far as I can tell. Fedora adopted new names
that made more sense,
Pete Orrall wrote:
>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
>> still
>> ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>
> I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
> the pain of others, but having professionally mana
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 09:30:20AM +0100, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
> init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
> problems quickly.
As someone who has both debugged and written many init scripts
Once upon a time, Pete Orrall said:
> > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you still
> > ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>
> I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
> the pain of others, but having p
On 2017-04-10, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> The same here. Could repeat that word for word. I fled what I could to
> FreeBSD, but in that process systemd was just the last drop that confirmed
> that my earlier decision to abandon Linux to the extent I can was right.
> Whatever has to stay Linux sucks
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you still
> ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running
SystemD
On 04/08/2017 09:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:
According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages
;
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 8:38:03 AM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll
On Mon, April 10, 2017 7:29 am, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
>> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>
On Mon, April 10, 2017 7:29 am, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
>> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>>
>>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>>> First, it is ridiculed.
>>> Second, it is violently oppose
On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>
>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>> First, it is ridiculed.
>> Second, it is violently opposed.
>> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
> Al
On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
All ideas, true
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 2:20 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/8/2017 9:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:
>
>>
>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
>> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>>
>
> I wish the documentation was a bit better
On 4/8/2017 9:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:
So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
I wish the documentation was a bit better. systemd and networkmanager
definitely change the rules... I ha
I'm ok with it as a init system, not much enthused by its ancillary components.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Anthony K"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Sent: Sunday, 9 April, 20
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
