On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:52:56 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Thank you very much +1; I see some other features there too that can
> > be handy, eg. subject RegExp simplification.
>
> Okay, the CCs have been removed; to anyone else wondering how to do,
> you can tick the box of the field (here: CC
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> How does one send email to*THIS* list, without being subscribed in
>> the first place? A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter.
>
> I think that is the main and primary point.
>
> I loathe lists that allow posts from non subscr
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:38:54 +0100
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:28:25 -0300
> luis jure wrote:
>
> >
> > el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió:
> >
> > > How to set this up per folder?
> >
> > rigth-click on the folder, "Properties..." -> "Compose" -> "default
> > to
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:28:25 -0300
luis jure wrote:
>
> el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió:
>
> > How to set this up per folder?
>
> rigth-click on the folder, "Properties..." -> "Compose" -> "default
> to:"
Thank you very much +1; I see some other features there too that can be
el 2014-03-22 a las 15:50 Tom Wijsman escribió:
> How to set this up per folder?
rigth-click on the folder, "Properties..." -> "Compose" -> "default to:"
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:35:50 -0400
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > How does one send email to*THIS* list, without being subscribed in
> > the first place? A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter.
>
> I think that is the main and primary point.
>
> I loat
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:56:17 +
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:15:49 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > Here's something that works for the both of us: Request someone to
> > not CC you in a follow-up mail when you catch them do it, they'll
> > respect that; that's a guarantee tha
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:00:59 +
thegeezer wrote:
> [...] so my point over 5 weeks ago was not about the difficulty in
> _finding_ the changes,
Ah, thanks; I see.
> but about keeping track of those changes and implementing htem.
Here, I would agree with if you have a lot of other things to d
On 3/21/2014 5:57 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
How does one send email to*THIS* list, without being subscribed in
the first place? A bugzilla mailing list is a different matter.
I think that is the main and primary point.
I loathe lists that allow posts from non subscribers (libreoffice
users),
On 03/22/2014 01:00 PM, thegeezer wrote:
> On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 +
>> thegeezer wrote:
>>
>>> the difficulty is that without knowing
>> It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a
>> short daily visit (or for less impor
On 03/22/2014 12:15 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> That way; you respect that I want to spent my time to be guaranteed to
> be useful, I respect that you don't want to be CC-ed in follow-up
> mails. Similarly; if someone is off-list; it takes a single mail to
> keep me from sending additional mails. As i
On 03/20/2014 06:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 +
> thegeezer wrote:
>
>> the difficulty is that without knowing
> It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a
> short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly);
> that's really not
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:15:49 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Here's something that works for the both of us: Request someone to not
> CC you in a follow-up mail when you catch them do it, they'll respect
> that; that's a guarantee that we can be certain that you are subscribed.
I tried that, you cc'd
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:08:35 -0500
Dale wrote:
> To the point about folks unsubscribing, if they do unsubscribe from
> the list, it may be because they got what they want and do NOT want
> any more messages.
Or it may be because they are tired of the flow of mails, but yet they
are still awaitin
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:57:40 +0200
Matti Nykyri wrote:
> I agree. I think it is arrogant to disturb lots of people that have
> done nothing to deserve it. People should be let to choose them self
> what they wanna do with their lives. If they wish to disengage some
> conversation, let them. Don't
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:34:53 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I disagree.
Can we agree to disagree?
> Your default position on things seems to be to favour the theoretical
> position over the reality. I'm the opposite, being a sysadmin and not
> a developer I'm a realist and not a theoretician. I w
Matti Nykyri wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:34, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2014 01:46, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200
>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>
2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list
so all discussion happens on-list
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:34, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 22/03/2014 01:46, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list
>>> so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all
>>>
On 22/03/2014 01:46, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list
>> so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all
>>
>> gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussio
Mick wrote:
> On Saturday 22 Mar 2014 00:28:04 Dale wrote:
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all. You can't
>>> possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the meantime
>>> Dale, I think you are projecting. Chill out brother, chill out. Plent
On Saturday 22 Mar 2014 00:28:04 Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all. You can't
> > possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the meantime
> > Dale, I think you are projecting. Chill out brother, chill out. Plenty
> > stuff in
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:41:03 -0500
> Dale wrote:
>
>> FYI. Most people don't say anything, they just blacklist you. After
>> that, you don't exist to them.
> Yes, that's up to those few; it could happen, but most respond instead.
I just read the last message from you Tom.
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Judging by replies so far, I'd guess not many at all. You can't
> possibly know how many will or will not plonk someone. In the meantime
> Dale, I think you are projecting. Chill out brother, chill out. Plenty
> stuff in the world more deserving of attention than this.
I fi
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:34:55 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 2. A discussion forum. For these you do munge Reply-To: to be the list
> so all discussion happens on-list and is visible to all
>
> gentoo-user has always been the latter and all discussion always takes
> place on-list. If some doc somew
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:57:07 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
> How does one send email to *THIS* list, without being subscribed in
> the first place?
You can do that on sites like GMANE; similarly, given a message ID,
you can request that specific from the mailing list daemon to land in
your inbox, w
On 21/03/2014 23:57, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:29:48PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote
>
>> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Procmail
>>
>> "The mailing list etiquette requires people to CC all the people
>> involved in a particular thread in replies to the mailing list, in case
>> any o
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:29:48PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Procmail
>
> "The mailing list etiquette requires people to CC all the people
> involved in a particular thread in replies to the mailing list, in case
> any of them is not subscribed."
How does one send
On 21/03/2014 20:23, Dale wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
>>> Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>
On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.
I am on the list and don'
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:41:03 -0500
Dale wrote:
> FYI. Most people don't say anything, they just blacklist you. After
> that, you don't exist to them.
Yes, that's up to those few; it could happen, but most respond instead.
> To my knowledge, the only emails I have not got when someone sent to
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
>> Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>>
>>> Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.
>>>
>>> I am on the list and don't need two copies.
>>>
>>> Use 'Reply-To-Lis
Poison BL. wrote:
> Just my 2c as one of the others who doesn't generally reply to what,
> at face value, seemed an awful lot more combative/trolling of a tone
> than actually useful (disregard != compliance on the internet),
> fighting on the topic of 'proper use of mailing lists' when you're
> st
On 3/21/2014 7:13 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.
I am on the list and don't need two copies.
Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delet
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:10:49 -0500
> Dale wrote:
>
>> So let's get this straight. You want most everyone on this list to
>> change what they have to do to remove dups caused by you, instead of
>> you changing what you do to fix the problem?
> Everyone else is okay with it, as
J. Roeleveld wrote:
> I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts. Please provide the
> correct syntax I need to do this. You are the only one causing
> duplicate emails, all others on this list do NOT cause duplicate
> emails. This means the cause is on your side and the solution should
> then als
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:06:12 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> Is that one included in the Cyrus ebuild?
In Cyrus it is an actual feature, see the (first) FAQ[1] entry about
Duplicate Delivery Surpression; in imapd.conf you can do
duplicatesuppression: 1
to enable this. It might be that becaus
On Fri, March 21, 2014 14:20, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:41:54 +0100
> "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100
>> > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tom,
>> >>
>> >> Please reply to list. No need to inclu
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:13:27 -0400
"Poison BL." wrote:
> fighting on the topic of 'proper use of mailing lists' when you're
> standing in stark contrast to the configuration of the mailing list
> you're using to do it,
Which fight? It is a short notice as to why it is being done, as well
as what
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:41:54 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100
> > "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> >
> >> Tom,
> >>
> >> Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list.
> >
> > Please filter duplicate
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:27:09 +
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>> > > Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case,
>> > > delete my direct email manually yourself) in yo
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:27:09 +
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > > Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case,
> > > delete my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.
> >
> > Like everyone else, use the 'Fil
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:10:49 -0500
Dale wrote:
> So let's get this straight. You want most everyone on this list to
> change what they have to do to remove dups caused by you, instead of
> you changing what you do to fix the problem?
Everyone else is okay with it, as only one in a thousand spea
On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100
> "J. Roeleveld" wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list.
>
> Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this.
I filter on the server, using SIEVE-
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:13:28 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
> > my direct email manually yourself) in your email program.
>
> Like everyone else, use the 'Filter duplicates' function in your email
> program or procmail; these re
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>> Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.
>>
>> I am on the list and don't need two copies.
>>
>> Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
>
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list.
Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-h
On 21 March 2014 12:24:04 CET, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:54:55 +0100
>"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
>
>> On Sun, February 16, 2014 22:16, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>> > wrote:
>> >> oh? I can pipe that output into cat or any
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:57:06 -0500
Tanstaafl wrote:
> Getting the Gentoo Council behind this idea, and providing an
> officially supported - or maybe a better term is *mandated* - process
> whereby systemd proponents can create and then maintain new systemd
> versions of any existing profiles.
>
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:00:43 +0400
"Yuri K. Shatroff" wrote:
> I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated
> into any existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility
> or just practical uselessness?
A lot of it is being integrated in some as we speak; however, ot
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:50:07 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> It all sounds too much like the MS Windows Event-viewer to me.
> Too many events with no usefull logging information (And I am
> referring to OS-level messages as to why default services are not
> starting)
The MS Windows Event-viewer ha
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:54:55 +0100
"J. Roeleveld" wrote:
> On Sun, February 16, 2014 22:16, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> > wrote:
> >> oh? I can pipe that output into cat or any any daemon I like?
> >> Doesn't look like so.
> >
> > But
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:32:28 +
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> A login daemon should be started by the init system, not be an
> integral part of it. What happens when logind no longer fulfils
> developers needs, as is the case with ConsoleKit now, how can it be
> replaced with an improved service when
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:25:18 -0400
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.
>
> I am on the list and don't need two copies.
>
> Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete
> my direct email manually you
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:23:05 -0400
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 3/20/2014 4:00 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400
> > Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >> OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be.
>
> > Do you have a source that backs up this claim?
>
> A
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:22:22 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works.
>
> How is this done?
Simply by booting without init=. although some packages have been built
with USE="systemd" they still work when booting using openrc. Of course,
On 3/20/2014 4:00 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be.
Do you have a source that backs up this claim?
Are you seriously challenging the FACT that OpenRC is the default init
sy
On 20/03/2014 22:33, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Good, as you describe after this (cut out), I get the impression that
> the opposite is the case and there are not enough; a solution to that
> exists elwhere, in Funtoo, check out their Flavors and Mix-ins:
>
> http://www.funtoo.org/Flavors_and_Mix-ins
>
On 3/20/2014 4:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Tom - please STOP CC'ing me on these emails.
I am on the list and don't need two copies.
Use 'Reply-To-List' function (or equivalent - or worst case, delete my
direct email manually yourself) in your email program.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 02:27:11 +0600
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:00:27 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will
> > > be.
> >
> > Do you have a source that backs up this claim?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/han
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:22:22 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 20/03/2014 20:57, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > Well, running systemd now I can reboot into OpenRC; it just works.
>
> How is this done?
Here, two GRUB entries; alternatively, eselect init to switch symlinks.
> > It's happening, `find /us
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:00:27 +0100 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > OpenRC is default in Gentoo now, and it is my best hope it will be.
>
> Do you have a source that backs up this claim?
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1&chap=6
> It comes as part of
> stage3, but a systemd st
On 20/03/2014 20:57, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:46:42 +0200
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> eselect manages config options between different implementation of a
>> thing. Usually by tweaking symlinks. Switching init OpenRC <-> SystemD
>> involves resetting uSE flags and recompiling s
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:50:24 -0500
Tanstaafl wrote:
> All myself and others have been insisting on is that systemd
> proponents be prevented from unilaterally creating some kind of
> dependenc[y][ies] whereby, through that backdoor, they create a
> situation where the *current* *default* init sys
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:53:51 +0400
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Gnome required systemd without alternative. Coincidence? I don't
> believe in them. I trust probabilities and statistics.
Gnome doesn't have such requirement; alternatives are possible, it's
not coincidence. I trust actual words from t
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:33:43 +
thegeezer wrote:
> Personally i'm most likely to stay with openRC, because the switch is
> non-trivial and have no faith in the xinetd-style socket arbitrator.
It should be trivial, it is here.
> but would eselect be able to script the following:
> .. new kern
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:46:42 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> eselect manages config options between different implementation of a
> thing. Usually by tweaking symlinks. Switching init OpenRC <-> SystemD
> involves resetting uSE flags and recompiling some fundamental stuff.
> That exercise is unlikel
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:19:43 +
thegeezer wrote:
> the difficulty is that without knowing
It is as easy as following the commits upstream makes, which is a
short daily visit (or for less important followers, even weekly);
that's really not too much asked for if you forked logind.
It is even
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:09:42 -0500
Tanstaafl wrote:
> I totally get XFCE *supporting* the use of logind, but why should it
> ever support *only* logind? That would seem insane to me.
If it were a decision, and other decisions were possible without cost,
yes; however, this often happens as the r
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:06:33 +0400
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Real world code without mistakes and larger than "Hello, world!"
> exercises is not possible. Large systems must have error suppression
> and correction techniques, modular and replaceable design is one of
> them, KISS is another one. S
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:56:53 +0200
Gevisz wrote:
> No, by arguing that fixing bugs in a 200K line program is as easy as
> fixing a bug in 20 10K line programs. It is just not true, just the
> opposite.
So, as systemd is modular per the biggest myth #6[1]; that means that,
PID 1 being something
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:05:03 +0200
Gevisz wrote:
> How can you be sure if something is "large enough" if, as you say
> below, you do not care about probabilities?
Statistics.
> If you do not care (= do not now anything) about probabilities
> (and mathematics, in general), you just unable to und
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:52:55 +0400
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:16:36 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> > wrote:
> > > Am 16.02.2014 21:08, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
> > >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Volker
On Friday 28 Feb 2014 13:45:12 Stroller wrote:
> On Fri, 28 February 2014, at 8:05 am, Samuli Suominen
wrote:
> > This must be a US -only thing since I've never even heard of AOL
> > desktop/suite before, even while lived through the 90's and the bulletin
> > board times (as being a SysOp myself
On Fri, 28 February 2014, at 8:05 am, Samuli Suominen
wrote:
>>> …
>>> * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows.
>>> We know how that turned out.
>> You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many
>> of those "forced to use it" (I gues
On 28/02/14 08:47, Stroller wrote:
> On Wed, 26 February 2014, at 8:29 pm, Walter Dnes
> wrote:
>> …
>> * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows.
>> We know how that turned out.
> You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many
> of t
On Wed, 26 February 2014, at 8:29 pm, Walter Dnes wrote:
> …
> * Netscape (under AOL) aimed at becoming a pseudo-OS on top of Windows.
> We know how that turned out.
You appear to be underestimating it - whilst the AOL suite was hated by many of
those "forced to use it" (I guess in the late 9
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:32:32AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> Is it like perl? Support every possible way to do something if it
> remotely makes sense to do it, no matter how bizarre the syntax?
The (d)evolution of perl reminds me of what's happened to Firefox,
GNOME, and KDE. To paraphrase
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 25/02/2014 14:40, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo
>>> maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices.
>>
>> Interesting. Now
On 25/02/2014 14:40, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo
>> maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices.
>
> Interesting. Now I have to spin off a new thread as to why this decision
> was
On 2014-02-24 4:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
In Gentoo you need systemd, but that's a decision from the Gentoo
maintainers. They do the job, they make the choices.
Interesting. Now I have to spin off a new thread as to why this decision
was made if it isn't forced by GNOME itself...
On Monday 24 Feb 2014 21:48:39 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > At least KDE has not hardcoded a requirement for systemd as Gnome now
> > has.
>
> GNOME has no hardcoded requirement for systemd; do your homework.
I beg your pardon, I got this wrong - I extrapolated from the Gentoo state of
affair
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 23:54:32 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick wrote:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> > Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code,
>>
>> My point exactly.
>
> I think your point is not valid, unless yo
On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 23:54:32 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code,
>
> My point exactly.
I think your point is not valid, unless you view Linux as an operating system
intended for and i
On 24.02.2014 22:55, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
[...]
I didn't attribute anything to you you didn't say. It just so happens, though
that there is a context to this conversation, which, if you ignore, just
tends to perpetuate a lot of confusion. I am responding to questions and
points in that conte
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
> On 24.02.2014 18:33, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> Sorry but I think I was quite clear:
>
> An init daemon generally does one thing well.
> Following a "Unix way" design, Everything else should be done by something
> else.
...
>> At least
On 24.02.2014 18:33, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff
wrote:
24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
[1] For lack of a better term, let's just ca
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
>
>
> 24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
[1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system
24.02.2014 16:39, Mark David Dumlao пишет:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
[1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system
controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
it well?
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote:
> 24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> [1] For lack of a better term, let's just call systemd here a "system
>> controller". What is this ONE thing a system controller should do and do
>> it well?
>
>
> An init daemon generally does one
24.02.2014 02:32, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and
with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd
24.02.2014 05:07, Alan McKinnon wrote:
[ ...]
We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the
point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially
giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me,
you fix it."
Doesn't sound like good de
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:07:09AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> >
> >> We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the
> >> point it occurred, we just chuc
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 24/02/2014 01:12, Mick wrote:
>> On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
new trying to follow
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:07:09AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
>
>> We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the
>> point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially
>> giving them message "stuff it, I'm
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:07:09AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the
> point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially
> giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me,
> you fix it."
Th
On 24/02/2014 01:12, Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
>>> new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and
>>> with th
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick wrote:
[ snip ]
> Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code,
My point exactly.
> but here's a starter for 10:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html
Funny you mention this; the second definition is by Robert Pike, who later said:
"Not
On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
> > new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and
> > with the same features (all of them optiona
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
>> new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and
>> with the same features (all of them optiona
On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something
> new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and
> with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd
> will have more chances; although
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Mick wrote:
[ snip ]
> I am not sure if people object to the Lennart-way of messing up Linux, under
> the blessings of RHL, or if they just don't like the immediate outcome.
Actually, most people that actually *try* using systemd and reads how
it works have no pro
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
