That's not government creating a monopoly, that's government recognizing one and taking steps to avoid a situation where nobody moves for fear someone else might finish first.
Note that it's not the smart way to resolve the logjam.
Most people don't enjoy living like a tramp. They move somewhere based on conditions at the time and don't care to move wherever the wind blows.
Decent communications infrastructure is a basic necessity of a modern society. The actual hardware used to reach people in more remote locations might vary, and perhaps gigabit fiber isn't immediately practical, but something better than dial-up should be reasonably inexpensive given even a vague flexibility.
Most market theory means dozens or even hundreds of competitors when it speaks of competition. Two or three only seems like competition in the entirely dysfunctional economic environment we have today. That's why nearly everything sells for well more than the marginal cost of production and corporations are reporting record profits even in a struggling economy.
How would Planck's constant be irrational? It does, after all, describe an intrinsically quantized world. In that world, there are no circles at all, only polygons with an outrageous number of sides.
And yet, it has been working for decades without systemd.
Just poll/wait for the needed conditions when necessary and kindly keep your grubby fingers out of my pie.
Then what happens if I choose something other than systemd? It all just works anyway, that's what. If I wanted dependency hell, I'd install Windows 95 and have fun with DLLs again.
Do one thing well. Build more complex actions by putting smaller parts together. Swiss army knife system utilities need not apply. That is the Unix way.
Mount -a is the perfect way to mount filesystems needed to init the machine. The rest can be mounted by a daemon as they become available. My / filesystem resides on an HDD that is bolted in to the system, if it's not there, there is nothing to boot, so why does it need to be 'monitored'?
As for the restarting thing, OI had that working cross platform back in the '90s. Restarter was a simple daemon that would run another process and watch it. If the process failed, it would re-run it and log the event. It integrated cleanly with Solaris, Linux, Irix, *NSD, and even Unicos. No need to trash the whole OS just for that capability.
It could easily be integrated with dbus and listen for events if that was actually desirable. No dependency hell, no turmoil, no "my way or the highway" mentality. Use it or don't.
If and when failures of mounted filesystems is handled gracefully, monitoring might matter. If this was just a matter of something in fstab already mounted, it wouldn't cause a problem. It shouldn't even be a problem if it's already mounted elsewhere (these days, you can mount a single filesystem more than one place in the tree).
If it's breaking, it's because systemd is going out of it's way to break something. That is not the sort of behavior I want to see in my init system. One of the virtues of Linux is that if you are root, it will do what you say if it is at all possible. It will try even if it isn't possible.
Systemd COULD be a good thing if it would stick to starting up the system. It should START udevd, not BE udevd. It should START dbus, not BE dbus. It should be trivially easy to do any of:
Switch from systemd to SysV, switch from SysV to systemd, use systemd but honor the SysV init scripts. With a bit of work fron the systemd folks, it should even be fairly easy to use SysV and have it start systemd to monitor select daemons.
Do that and every single objection would go away immediately.
A few minutes time is all that is needed to come up with an setuid init.d wrapper that can check a text file to see if you are allowed to start/spot a particular service. No need to rip up the whole system for that.
The network can already demand start/stop without dependency hell. It's been available for a few years now in the form of NetworkManager.
Yes, there was. For a long time, they existed in parallel. Nobody minded because neither tried to make everything under the sun depend on it rather than the other.
In fact, there's no technical reason systemd couldn't peacefully co-exist.
You promised personal grief to anyone who doesn't accept systemd:
Whether you love, hate, or are ambivalent about systemd, I think you have to accept it at this point. If there are things you don't like about it, trying to use an alternate init mechanism is only going to cause you personal grief that will likely only increase in severity over time as it gets harder and harder to retrofit software packages to use other init systems as systemd further embeds itself into the Linux software world.
That's the problem. If systemd would keep it's tentacles to itself and just be an init replacement, nobody would complain.
Again, I can see how it is annoying, but if you have an/etc/fstab entry that wants to steamroll a systemd entry, it is understandable that systemd will try to stop that from happening.
Or it could just honor fstab since that has always been the correct way to specify mounting a filesystem.
So, systemd doesn't just start/stop services, it also monitors them and can be configured to take certain actions depending on what happens to a particular process.
I see no reason that should need to touch system logging at all other than adding a log entry if it has to take action.
So what happened to user choice? I guess you're for it as long as they choose whatever you choose?
There are plenty of people who would rather have nothing to do with systemd. The correct response is "to each his own", not "Deploty the dependency hell!".
If I wanted Windows, I'd use Windows.
If people want systemd, good for them, they can have it. But this extension of entirely unnecessary dependency hell (DLL hell anyone) has got to go.
Part of it is that hard necessities have gone up more than other consumer goods, so in fact, it takes more inflation adjusted dollars to provide the basics now than it used to (odd but true). In addition, living in society today imposes more costs than it used to, due to everything from building codes and zoneing to child labor laws and compulsory education.
I don't think so considering that I'm disappointed in the Democrats for shifting to the right. The rest f the world has noticed that the U.S. has no significant left, just right, righter, and wingnut.
So who is it that opposes gay marriage, abortion (even in the case of rape for a fair percentage), birth control, etc.
I hear stuff from Democrats I disagree with all the time, but it tends to be the GOP saying things that are outrageously stupid or blatant lies, batshit crazy, or just sociopathic.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not government creating a monopoly, that's government recognizing one and taking steps to avoid a situation where nobody moves for fear someone else might finish first.
Note that it's not the smart way to resolve the logjam.
Most people don't enjoy living like a tramp. They move somewhere based on conditions at the time and don't care to move wherever the wind blows.
Decent communications infrastructure is a basic necessity of a modern society. The actual hardware used to reach people in more remote locations might vary, and perhaps gigabit fiber isn't immediately practical, but something better than dial-up should be reasonably inexpensive given even a vague flexibility.
Most market theory means dozens or even hundreds of competitors when it speaks of competition. Two or three only seems like competition in the entirely dysfunctional economic environment we have today. That's why nearly everything sells for well more than the marginal cost of production and corporations are reporting record profits even in a struggling economy.
Those are overall figures whereas OP is talking about just internet.
I'm suggesting that no quantized number is irrational. Pretty much by the definition of quantized. It will necessarily be truncated.
How would Planck's constant be irrational? It does, after all, describe an intrinsically quantized world. In that world, there are no circles at all, only polygons with an outrageous number of sides.
Right, so why is it screwing with the logs to decide if the child went away or not?
And yet, it has been working for decades without systemd.
Just poll/wait for the needed conditions when necessary and kindly keep your grubby fingers out of my pie.
Then what happens if I choose something other than systemd? It all just works anyway, that's what. If I wanted dependency hell, I'd install Windows 95 and have fun with DLLs again.
Do one thing well. Build more complex actions by putting smaller parts together. Swiss army knife system utilities need not apply. That is the Unix way.
Mount -a is the perfect way to mount filesystems needed to init the machine. The rest can be mounted by a daemon as they become available. My / filesystem resides on an HDD that is bolted in to the system, if it's not there, there is nothing to boot, so why does it need to be 'monitored'?
Personally, I abandoned Solaris because of it's nasty habit of making simple things complicated and non-standard for little gain.
The over-complexity pervaded it. That's part of why it was being called Slowlaris.
Sounds like systemd needs to handle mounting the Unix way.
As for the restarting thing, OI had that working cross platform back in the '90s. Restarter was a simple daemon that would run another process and watch it. If the process failed, it would re-run it and log the event. It integrated cleanly with Solaris, Linux, Irix, *NSD, and even Unicos. No need to trash the whole OS just for that capability.
It could easily be integrated with dbus and listen for events if that was actually desirable. No dependency hell, no turmoil, no "my way or the highway" mentality. Use it or don't.
If and when failures of mounted filesystems is handled gracefully, monitoring might matter. If this was just a matter of something in fstab already mounted, it wouldn't cause a problem. It shouldn't even be a problem if it's already mounted elsewhere (these days, you can mount a single filesystem more than one place in the tree).
If it's breaking, it's because systemd is going out of it's way to break something. That is not the sort of behavior I want to see in my init system. One of the virtues of Linux is that if you are root, it will do what you say if it is at all possible. It will try even if it isn't possible.
Systemd COULD be a good thing if it would stick to starting up the system. It should START udevd, not BE udevd. It should START dbus, not BE dbus. It should be trivially easy to do any of:
Switch from systemd to SysV, switch from SysV to systemd, use systemd but honor the SysV init scripts. With a bit of work fron the systemd folks, it should even be fairly easy to use SysV and have it start systemd to monitor select daemons.
Do that and every single objection would go away immediately.
I have to kill it off in order to get decent latency. I don't mind PA because there is no illness it causes that can't be fixed with kill -9.
A few minutes time is all that is needed to come up with an setuid init.d wrapper that can check a text file to see if you are allowed to start/spot a particular service. No need to rip up the whole system for that.
The network can already demand start/stop without dependency hell. It's been available for a few years now in the form of NetworkManager.
Yes, there was. For a long time, they existed in parallel. Nobody minded because neither tried to make everything under the sun depend on it rather than the other.
In fact, there's no technical reason systemd couldn't peacefully co-exist.
You promised personal grief to anyone who doesn't accept systemd:
Whether you love, hate, or are ambivalent about systemd, I think you have to accept it at this point. If there are things you don't like about it, trying to use an alternate init mechanism is only going to cause you personal grief that will likely only increase in severity over time as it gets harder and harder to retrofit software packages to use other init systems as systemd further embeds itself into the Linux software world.
That's the problem. If systemd would keep it's tentacles to itself and just be an init replacement, nobody would complain.
And look where Solaris is today, a hollow shell of it's former self. Abandoned for Linux.
Again, I can see how it is annoying, but if you have an /etc/fstab entry that wants to steamroll a systemd entry, it is understandable that systemd will try to stop that from happening.
Or it could just honor fstab since that has always been the correct way to specify mounting a filesystem.
So, systemd doesn't just start/stop services, it also monitors them and can be configured to take certain actions depending on what happens to a particular process.
I see no reason that should need to touch system logging at all other than adding a log entry if it has to take action.
So what happened to user choice? I guess you're for it as long as they choose whatever you choose?
There are plenty of people who would rather have nothing to do with systemd. The correct response is "to each his own", not "Deploty the dependency hell!".
If I wanted Windows, I'd use Windows.
If people want systemd, good for them, they can have it. But this extension of entirely unnecessary dependency hell (DLL hell anyone) has got to go.
Part of it is that hard necessities have gone up more than other consumer goods, so in fact, it takes more inflation adjusted dollars to provide the basics now than it used to (odd but true). In addition, living in society today imposes more costs than it used to, due to everything from building codes and zoneing to child labor laws and compulsory education.
If the work is less valuable than the cost of the worker remaining alive, it shouldn't be done. That is basic economics.
I don't think so considering that I'm disappointed in the Democrats for shifting to the right. The rest f the world has noticed that the U.S. has no significant left, just right, righter, and wingnut.
So who is it that opposes gay marriage, abortion (even in the case of rape for a fair percentage), birth control, etc.
I hear stuff from Democrats I disagree with all the time, but it tends to be the GOP saying things that are outrageously stupid or blatant lies, batshit crazy, or just sociopathic.