On 02.02.2015 22:04, Vlad wrote:
> If systemd is the Borg I propose the first release of Devuan be named S8472.
Yeah, and if we take out some pieces, we call them Hugh, Annika, Naomi,
Axum, etc.
Contributions to other packages or even distros could run on the title
Unimatrix Zero.
--mtx
--
En
On 02.02.2015 16:22, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Is not ISIL a better analogy?
s/ISIL/NATO;
--mtx
--
Enrico Weigelt,
metux IT consulting
+49-151-27565287
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
On 02.02.2015 15:56, Ricardo Larrañaga wrote:
> Take a look at the third page and see what Lennart compares systemd to
> (For those that dont feel like. It's Start Trek's Captain Piccard as a
> borgand then tux as a borg.)
> https://rhsummit.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/summit_demystifying_
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 12:31:54 -0500 Steve Litt wrote:
> I'm not a Star Trek guy. What is the exact meaning of the two
> "Resistance is Futile" slides? What point is the presentation trying
> to get across?
Whoever put this presentation together couldn't have used a worse analogy,
because it induce
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 14:57 +, BRM wrote:
>
>
> FYI - as a KDE user I've paid attention to KDE and systemd where I
> can.
> KDE goes far beyond Linux, so for them to only support systemd would
> be foolish.
> And they are certainly not only supporting systemd.
I am also a KDE user also.
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 02:22:58PM -0300, hellekin wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 12:37 PM, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:22:45 -0500
> > Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >
> >>> Only remains to prove the talibans of systemd that resistance is not
> >>> futile...
> >
> >> Is not ISIL a
* On 2015 03 Feb 03:22 -0600, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 16:54 -0600, t.j.duch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 02, 2015 07:57:23 PM Vlad wrote:
> ...
> > I think that uselessd or FreeBSD's compatibility projects are probably the
> > most likely solutions.
>
> What a
On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:22:58 -0300
hellekin wrote:
> Let me help you. After all, I'm a free software talib. (see my twitter)
I stand reproved, and thank you for enlightening me.
Cheers,
Ron.
--
We are all born for love. It is the
principle of existenc
On 02/02/2015 12:37 PM, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:22:45 -0500
> Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>>> Only remains to prove the talibans of systemd that resistance is not
>>> futile...
>
>> Is not ISIL a better analogy?
>
> Grovelling apologies, but I have difficulties disting
On Monday, February 2, 2015 5:54 PM, "t.j.duch...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> On Monday, February 02, 2015 07:57:23 PM Vlad wrote:
> > Hey Lennart if you dislike Devuan that much feel free to go back to
> > freedesktop.org or whatever?
> >
>
> You misunderstood what I meant. I was in a hurry, and
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 16:09 -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 02/02/15 15:56, Vlad wrote:
> > Well Poettering is actually getting paid for doing all this, the same
> goes for a lot of other contributors, basically they have nothing
> better to do and this is a nice excuse to get money.
> >
> >
On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:29:40 +
Michael Dec wrote:
> On 2015-02-02 17:47, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> > Funny thing. I hear a lot of complaining about systemd, and yes, i
> > think some of it is justified, but consider this...Rather than
> > joining
> > the project and steering it in another direc
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:32:06PM -0500, Jude Nelson wrote:
> Hi Jaromil,
>
> Making vdev easy to use in sandboxed contexts (chroot, lxc, jails, etc.) is
> definitely a design requirement!
Looks useful. Might make system recovery easier. One thing I'd like
to be able to do is run a dist-upgra
Exactly! that's what i feel and think about it.
On 2015-02-02 15:46, Steve Litt wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 11:47:28 -0600
"T.J. Duchene" wrote:
Funny thing. I hear a lot of complaining about systemd, and yes, i
think some of it is justified, but consider this...Rather than
joining the project
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 19:25 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2015 02 Feb 07:53 -0600, Martijn Dekkers wrote:
> > I found this an interesting read:
> IMO, it is time for a Devuan Alpha release, developer preview, or
> something for this project to show the world it is serious and
> developing a
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 16:54 -0600, t.j.duch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 02, 2015 07:57:23 PM Vlad wrote:
...
> I think that uselessd or FreeBSD's compatibility projects are probably the
> most likely solutions.
What about Guix with GNU dmd as init system? This is at least the GNU
fu
I posted a list of packages in another thread. I think we should figure
out which ones are easy to recompile and set up an automated build process
to do that periodically, and parcel out the ones that aren't to people who
can patch them.
-Jude
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Michael Dec wrote:
On 2015-02-02 23:14, Gravis wrote:
Unless Devuan intends to drop or fork every single piece of software
that
decides to use systemd's facilities, it's going to be a war of
attrition as
things go on, no matter the arguments against systemd.
for the vast majority of programs that depend on syst
On 2015-02-02 17:47, T.J. Duchene wrote:
Funny thing. I hear a lot of complaining about systemd, and yes, i
think some of it is justified, but consider this...Rather than
joining
the project and steering it in another direction, or creating patches
to fix what you do not like, everyone is just
I think he might be a concern troll, best ignore him.
On Feb 3, 2015 1:32 AM, "Steve Litt" wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:54:12 -0600
> t.j.duch...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 02, 2015 07:57:23 PM Vlad wrote:
> > > Hey Lennart if you dislike Devuan that much feel free to go back t
On Monday, February 02, 2015 11:32:52 PM dng-requ...@lists.dyne.org wrote:
> Devuan is probably going to have to provide some form of
>
> > compatibility in the future. This will be the case, regardless of how
> > you or I might feel on the subject, especially if kdbus gets
> > integrated into th
* On 2015 02 Feb 07:53 -0600, Martijn Dekkers wrote:
> I found this an interesting read:
>
> * read ahead implementation dropped: in the age of SSDs the benefit is not
> big enough to have this. All systemd developers have SSDs and no more
> spinning disks, nobody could/wanted to support this anym
Hello!
Am 03.02.2015 um 00:21 schrieb T.J. Duchene:
> [...]
> Of course, it is also possible that Devuan will become a
> "systemd-free" specialty distribution that follows your
> suggestion of absolute minimalism. I don't see that being a
> good niche, since there are already plenty to fill that a
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:54:12 -0600
t.j.duch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 02, 2015 07:57:23 PM Vlad wrote:
> > Hey Lennart if you dislike Devuan that much feel free to go back to
> > freedesktop.org or whatever?
> >
>
> You misunderstood what I meant. I was in a hurry, and I admit,
On Tuesday, February 03, 2015 01:04:10 AM Vlad wrote:
> GNOME and KDE are bloated, and DEs should not put requirements on anything,
> they are nothing more than GUI alternatives to the shell.
DE's are not the only piece of software I was referring to. In the short run,
they are certainly the mos
> Unless Devuan intends to drop or fork every single piece of software that
> decides to use systemd's facilities, it's going to be a war of attrition as
> things go on, no matter the arguments against systemd.
for the vast majority of programs that depend on systemd, you can just
recompile progra
GNOME and KDE are bloated, and DEs should not put requirements on anything,
they are nothing more than GUI alternatives to the shell.
On February 3, 2015 12:54:12 AM EET, t.j.duch...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Monday, February 02, 2015 07:57:23 PM Vlad wrote:
>> Hey Lennart if you dislike Devuan that m
On Monday, February 02, 2015 07:57:23 PM Vlad wrote:
> Hey Lennart if you dislike Devuan that much feel free to go back to
> freedesktop.org or whatever?
>
You misunderstood what I meant. I was in a hurry, and I admit, I should have
phrased it better. Mea culpa.
The reality is that no matter w
Clarke Sideroad wrote:
On 02/02/15 08:06, Aldemir Akpinar wrote:
I was going to have a rude reply here until I read this at the bottom:
a new secure boot implementation: this is a work-in-progress, to have
more validation of the boot process that it hasn't been tampered
with. It will integra
Hi Jaromil,
Making vdev easy to use in sandboxed contexts (chroot, lxc, jails, etc.) is
definitely a design requirement! I didn't know about schroot before just
now, but I'll be sure to take a look at it for inspiration and test vdev
with it for compatibility.
Regards,
-Jude
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015
Hi Anthony,
Let me say that I hold you in high esteem and have the utmost respect for
you and your colleagues for your work on eudev, and keeping at it in the
face of community ire no less.
I would love to work more with you on creating a better independent device
manager. You might recall that
On 02/02/15 15:56, Vlad wrote:
Well Poettering is actually getting paid for doing all this, the same goes for
a lot of other contributors, basically they have nothing better to do and this
is a nice excuse to get money.
On February 2, 2015 8:51:18 PM EET, digitek wrote:
FTFA It sounds like s
If systemd is the Borg I propose the first release of Devuan be named S8472.
And that we temporarily change the project motto to 'The weak shall perish'.
Trek fans will know what I am talking about.;)
On February 2, 2015 8:15:10 PM EET, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
>Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
>>
Well Poettering is actually getting paid for doing all this, the same goes for
a lot of other contributors, basically they have nothing better to do and this
is a nice excuse to get money.
On February 2, 2015 8:51:18 PM EET, digitek wrote:
>FTFA It sounds like systemd is evolving into a piece o
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 11:47:28 -0600
"T.J. Duchene" wrote:
> Funny thing. I hear a lot of complaining about systemd, and yes, i
> think some of it is justified, but consider this...Rather than
> joining the project and steering it in another direction, or creating
> patches to fix what you do not l
FTFA It sounds like systemd is evolving into a piece of software which touches
every single part of the operating system; and that's quite concerning in
itself without considering one team is maintaining it all.
"There were no slides. None whatsoever. No presentation. He just talked" ?
no nee
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 12:31:54 -0500
Steve Litt wrote:
I'm not a Star Trek guy. What is the exact meaning of the two
"Resistance is Futile" slides? What point is the presentation trying to
get across?
The point as I understand it is that (according to the authors) Lin
Hey Lennart if you dislike Devuan that much feel free to go back to
freedesktop.org or whatever?
On February 2, 2015 7:47:28 PM EET, "T.J. Duchene"
wrote:
>Funny thing. I hear a lot of complaining about systemd, and yes, i
>think
>some of it is justified, but consider this...Rather than join
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 12:31:54 -0500
Steve Litt wrote:
> I'm not a Star Trek guy. What is the exact meaning of the two
> "Resistance is Futile" slides? What point is the presentation trying to
> get across?
The point as I understand it is that (according to the authors) Linux will be
compelled to
Funny thing. I hear a lot of complaining about systemd, and yes, i think
some of it is justified, but consider this...Rather than joining the
project and steering it in another direction, or creating patches to fix
what you do not like, everyone is just standing about complaining. Now
this is not
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:56:22 -0400
Ricardo Larrañaga wrote:
> Take a look at the third page and see what Lennart compares systemd
> to (For those that dont feel like. It's Start Trek's Captain Piccard
> as a borgand then tux as a borg.)
> https://rhsummit.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/summi
I have come to the conclusion that they are basically re-inventing *nix -
the ultimate "Not Invented Here" implementation
On 2 February 2015 at 19:22, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:02:51 +0200
> Martijn Dekkers wrote:
>
> > http://ma.ttias.be/whats-new-systemd-2015-edition/
> >
> >
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:02:51 +0200
Martijn Dekkers wrote:
> http://ma.ttias.be/whats-new-systemd-2015-edition/
>
> tl;dr everything, including the kitchensink.
LOL, that "ping gateway" functionality could have been done with a 10
or 20 line shellscript with a bunch of ip commands and a few ping
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:22:45 -0500
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Only remains to prove the talibans of systemd that resistance is not
> > futile...
> Is not ISIL a better analogy?
Grovelling apologies, but I have difficulties distinguishing shades in that
region of the spectrum...
Cheers,
Ron
On 2015-02-02 15:22, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:56:22 -0400
Ricardo Larrañaga wrote:
Take a look at the third page and see what Lennart compares systemd
to
Since the beginning of this systemd thing, it has been my
instinctive feeling that "We are
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:56:22 -0400
Ricardo Larrañaga wrote:
Take a look at the third page and see what Lennart compares systemd to
Since the beginning of this systemd thing, it has been my instinctive feeling that
"We are systemd of Borg, resistance is futile".
On
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:56:22 -0400
Ricardo Larrañaga wrote:
> Take a look at the third page and see what Lennart compares systemd to
Since the beginning of this systemd thing, it has been my instinctive feeling
that "We are systemd of Borg, resistance is futile".
Only remains to prove the tali
I have been trying to learn some systemd basics. While i dont really like
the idea, i will probably still have to work with it.
So i browsed some links about systemd and found a presentation about its
features.
Take a look at the third page and see what Lennart compares systemd to (For
those that d
On 02/02/15 08:06, Aldemir Akpinar wrote:
I was going to have a rude reply here until I read this at the bottom:
a new secure boot implementation: this is a work-in-progress, to have
more validation of the boot process that it hasn't been tampered with.
It will integrate a new method of signi
I found this an interesting read:
* read ahead implementation dropped: in the age of SSDs the benefit is not
big enough to have this. All systemd developers have SSDs and no more
spinning disks, nobody could/wanted to support this anymore. The idea was
to read-ahead the bits needed during the boot
On 2 February 2015 at 13:02, Martijn Dekkers
wrote:
> http://ma.ttias.be/whats-new-systemd-2015-edition/
>
> tl;dr everything, including the kitchensink.
>
> Some of the listed stuff looks/sounds pretty cool, I just have serious
> reservations of all this stuff belonging to one team. I find it ve
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015, Jude Nelson wrote:
>Ha!* Beat'em to it with vdev, and we didn't have to replace PID 1 either.
>-Jude
cheers Jude! these are nice features and can come useful if substituting
PID1 is not involved. I'm spending some time to study Roger's schroot
these days and see lots
"""
* Can also hide /dev/* devices and hide all the physical devices (like
/dev/sda, ...) and only keep /dev/zero, /dev/null, ... for particular
services.
* By using other systemd tools (not mentioned), you can limit access to
/dev/* devices to particular services and block it for all others
"""
H
http://ma.ttias.be/whats-new-systemd-2015-edition/
tl;dr everything, including the kitchensink.
Some of the listed stuff looks/sounds pretty cool, I just have serious
reservations of all this stuff belonging to one team. I find it very hard
to see how any kind of quality can be maintained when de
54 matches
Mail list logo
