Do you also know how to change engine oil so you can get to work?
Yes, I in fact wanted to learn how to do that (and hence did) in order to not have to pay a garage to do it. This is literally analogous to what I wrote about Linux
Because if not, you don't want to learn things.
If I don't want to learn how to change my oil, I in fact don't want to learn how to change my oil. Way to point out the obvious, Sherlock.
Do you also know how to fillet a chicken? Because if not, you don't want to learn things.
No, I don't. This is why I pay other people to fillet the chicken for me, like you should pay MS or Apple to provide you with a computer-illiterate-friendly means to make your computer do what you use it to do.
Do you also know how to change roof shingles to stop leaks? Because if not, you don't want to learn things.
Same thing as above. Yes, can do, will use skill to save money when roof leaks. You're essentially making the arguments for me, are we maybe a little confused as to which side of the discussion we're on?
There never going to be Linux Desktop year
Fortunately.
until it just works, like Win/iOS just mostly works.
It's like you didn't even read the comment you're replying to. At all.
Linux is not for you, as per the (spot on) GP. You don't want to learn things, and that's fine. Just go with Windows or Apple.
Nobody will ever turn Linux into "a perfect replacement for Windows" because that's not the goal, most people already knowledgeable in Linux see no point in dumbing it down for the masses, not only because like everything else in the world, "the masses" ruin it. Also if the goal was to copy Windows, then why not use Windows in the first place.
Oh, because you want it to be free, sure. Well it isn't free, it comes at the price of actually being interested in computers and wanting to learn at least basic concepts. If your time is worth anything, that'll turn out a lot more expensive than paying the MS-tax and buying an Apple device, so there's one more reason to get on with your life and run something you can use without having to understand anything about it.
IOW stop trying to be something that you aren't. The only way Linux is actually long-term usable for computer illiterates with no desire to learn (not judging, it's fine to be) is if someone else admins the box for them (e.g. my parents are "long term Linux users" without a faint clue about Linux, for about 7 years now. But they only manage because I took care to provide them with the means to do what they want to do). If you're completely out of options but have a bunch of money, you might hire someone to do that for you, if you really this badly want to use Linux (for whatever reason that would be)
Ok, to counter your anecdote, there may be thousands of Linux admins that are in favor of systemd; but there are millions of Windows admins who will praise it even more than systemd fanboys praise their retarded little^Whuge project.
So by your metric, Windows servers are largely superior to Linux/systemd. Thanks for playing.
Perhaps that's what the grandparent is talking about
Then it's not RIP if it's supported, is it? I'm pretty sure that's not what gp meant.
You dimwit, that was exactly what GP (me) meant. And it being "supported" doesn't mean it works. In Debian, rc.local fires some time in the middle of the boot process, not at the end.
The rest of your comment made me throw up a little in my mouth. I recommend not trying to make statements about things you have no knowledge of (e.g. BSD, and possibly systemd too)
Why are you systemd haters still thinking that systemd is exact replica of sysvinit, but newer code?
Thinking that this what systemd haters think is next level stupid. Nobody thinks this since it is obvious that systemd is a huge crapton of stuff beyond that. Hell even the init program consists of dozens of kilolines worth of source (cue you demonstrating your lack of understanding by telling me the source file isn't that much bigger than sysvinit's).
It is not. It is a completely different, new system, with new paradigms.
Yeah. And both the system and the paradigms are a pile of crap. It's confused people like you who think "newer is better" in the software world, because it's generally like this for material things that are subject to wear over time.
You don't do rc.local under systemd
Yet enough systemd based distros offer rc.local.
you write a proper service and get the FULL advantage of the entire process management API.
Oh nice! I can't wait for the "FULL advantage of the entire process management API" (seriously you sound like an advertiser) when spinning down hard disks at after system bootup, and setting my keyboard layout. Incredibly helpful to have this run through a huge blob so what it fails (and it does), instead of debugging a shell script I have to rebuild systemd with debugging symbols and attach a debugger or trace it. Great value.
nobody is taking them away from you.
Except they are, by more and more stuff indirectly depending on systemd. Personally I run BSDs where I can, but I still feel the systemd breakage at work and on computers I maintain for others, like my parents. The other day I could no longer run Xfce on my parent's computer, because some dependencies of its dependencies of its dependencies now depend on systemd. Great value. This is where I migrated them to Devuan.
And don't even get me started on the "clean up behind us" arrogance of the systemd developers and fanboys (like you)
You can also get long power bars with as many as ten outlets that are well spaced
Bonus points for getting the cheapest you can find in the hardware store and watch as it melts down after exceeding the small amount of current it can handle safely.
This. I've yet to meet a full time unix admin (and that doesn't mean a basement dweller who managed to install ubuntu on their laptop) who actually liked it or could make a good case for it.
It's usually something along the lines of "well, yes, can't deny that our service (non-)management could use some improvement so I can see the original drive behind systemd, but it's a complete dumpster fire at this point"
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to figure out why rc.local is run before half the other services; what actually causes it to run and with what environment. Too bad this is not a matter of debugging shell scripts anymore. Because recompiling systemd with debug symbols and then hooking up a debugger to it is so much better.
Anecdata: Devuan seems surprisingly solid so far, doesn't feel like a hobby project at all. I've deployed it to the computer of my parents after their systemd based distro went down the shitter (RIP, rc.local); the only issue I had to implement manually was a bit of shutdown from GUI/switch user/etc logic.
Would use it on my own computers too if I weren't using *BSD.
You're accidentally correct in that PCs generally don't keep their RTC in sync (they have better time bases after booting up); other than that what a trainwreck of a comment. Yikes.
timesync is the best tool because it barely does what you will settle for. Okay. Or are you trying to say that a more precise time will somehow harm your desktops?
The irony is that while this improves NTP, "modern linux" uses "systemd-timesync" instead which kinda sorta knows how to get the time of day from one server with undefined tolerances, throwing away decades of work by intelligent people that went into making NTP what it is now.
Who cares, right. What did those nerds know about clocks and time anyway.
Unless you're trying to obtain a certificate for the administration interface of an internal device on your home LAN, such as a router, printer, or NAS. Then you have to not only use Let's Encrypt but also buy a domain.
Or you build your own local CA, which, while the openssl UI admittedly is a bit hairy, is not an outrageously difficult thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you also know how to change engine oil so you can get to work?
Yes, I in fact wanted to learn how to do that (and hence did) in order to not have to pay a garage to do it. This is literally analogous to what I wrote about Linux
Because if not, you don't want to learn things.
If I don't want to learn how to change my oil, I in fact don't want to learn how to change my oil. Way to point out the obvious, Sherlock.
Do you also know how to fillet a chicken? Because if not, you don't want to learn things.
No, I don't. This is why I pay other people to fillet the chicken for me, like you should pay MS or Apple to provide you with a computer-illiterate-friendly means to make your computer do what you use it to do.
Do you also know how to change roof shingles to stop leaks? Because if not, you don't want to learn things.
Same thing as above. Yes, can do, will use skill to save money when roof leaks. You're essentially making the arguments for me, are we maybe a little confused as to which side of the discussion we're on?
There never going to be Linux Desktop year
Fortunately.
until it just works, like Win/iOS just mostly works.
It's like you didn't even read the comment you're replying to. At all.
Linux is not for you, as per the (spot on) GP. You don't want to learn things, and that's fine. Just go with Windows or Apple.
Nobody will ever turn Linux into "a perfect replacement for Windows" because that's not the goal, most people already knowledgeable in Linux see no point in dumbing it down for the masses, not only because like everything else in the world, "the masses" ruin it. Also if the goal was to copy Windows, then why not use Windows in the first place.
Oh, because you want it to be free, sure. Well it isn't free, it comes at the price of actually being interested in computers and wanting to learn at least basic concepts. If your time is worth anything, that'll turn out a lot more expensive than paying the MS-tax and buying an Apple device, so there's one more reason to get on with your life and run something you can use without having to understand anything about it.
IOW stop trying to be something that you aren't. The only way Linux is actually long-term usable for computer illiterates with no desire to learn (not judging, it's fine to be) is if someone else admins the box for them (e.g. my parents are "long term Linux users" without a faint clue about Linux, for about 7 years now. But they only manage because I took care to provide them with the means to do what they want to do). If you're completely out of options but have a bunch of money, you might hire someone to do that for you, if you really this badly want to use Linux (for whatever reason that would be)
Nice reading comprehension there.
I think the intent of the above sentence was to suggest they're not a mere 'normal human'.
You are still trying way too hard..
You are still trying way too hard.
Ok, to counter your anecdote, there may be thousands of Linux admins that are in favor of systemd; but there are millions of Windows admins who will praise it even more than systemd fanboys praise their retarded little^Whuge project.
So by your metric, Windows servers are largely superior to Linux/systemd. Thanks for playing.
Yep. Newer is better, even Joe Sixpack knows that. Since Software itself is a comparably new concept, it has to go double for it. /s
Perhaps that's what the grandparent is talking about
Then it's not RIP if it's supported, is it? I'm pretty sure that's not what gp meant.
You dimwit, that was exactly what GP (me) meant. And it being "supported" doesn't mean it works. In Debian, rc.local fires some time in the middle of the boot process, not at the end.
The rest of your comment made me throw up a little in my mouth. I recommend not trying to make statements about things you have no knowledge of (e.g. BSD, and possibly systemd too)
Why are you systemd haters still thinking that systemd is exact replica of sysvinit, but newer code?
Thinking that this what systemd haters think is next level stupid. Nobody thinks this since it is obvious that systemd is a huge crapton of stuff beyond that. Hell even the init program consists of dozens of kilolines worth of source (cue you demonstrating your lack of understanding by telling me the source file isn't that much bigger than sysvinit's).
It is not. It is a completely different, new system, with new paradigms.
Yeah. And both the system and the paradigms are a pile of crap. It's confused people like you who think "newer is better" in the software world, because it's generally like this for material things that are subject to wear over time.
You don't do rc.local under systemd
Yet enough systemd based distros offer rc.local.
you write a proper service and get the FULL advantage of the entire process management API.
Oh nice! I can't wait for the "FULL advantage of the entire process management API" (seriously you sound like an advertiser) when spinning down hard disks at after system bootup, and setting my keyboard layout. Incredibly helpful to have this run through a huge blob so what it fails (and it does), instead of debugging a shell script I have to rebuild systemd with debugging symbols and attach a debugger or trace it. Great value.
nobody is taking them away from you.
Except they are, by more and more stuff indirectly depending on systemd. Personally I run BSDs where I can, but I still feel the systemd breakage at work and on computers I maintain for others, like my parents. The other day I could no longer run Xfce on my parent's computer, because some dependencies of its dependencies of its dependencies now depend on systemd. Great value. This is where I migrated them to Devuan.
And don't even get me started on the "clean up behind us" arrogance of the systemd developers and fanboys (like you)
You can also get long power bars with as many as ten outlets that are well spaced
Bonus points for getting the cheapest you can find in the hardware store and watch as it melts down after exceeding the small amount of current it can handle safely.
You are trying way too hard.
Is TFA (I can't access it) talking about USD cents or Ush cents though?
This.
No shit, Sherlock. That's why their estimate was okay.
This. I've yet to meet a full time unix admin (and that doesn't mean a basement dweller who managed to install ubuntu on their laptop) who actually liked it or could make a good case for it.
It's usually something along the lines of "well, yes, can't deny that our service (non-)management could use some improvement so I can see the original drive behind systemd, but it's a complete dumpster fire at this point"
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to figure out why rc.local is run before half the other services; what actually causes it to run and with what environment. Too bad this is not a matter of debugging shell scripts anymore. Because recompiling systemd with debug symbols and then hooking up a debugger to it is so much better.
Except not.
hobbyist projects like Devuan
Anecdata: Devuan seems surprisingly solid so far, doesn't feel like a hobby project at all. I've deployed it to the computer of my parents after their systemd based distro went down the shitter (RIP, rc.local); the only issue I had to implement manually was a bit of shutdown from GUI/switch user/etc logic.
Would use it on my own computers too if I weren't using *BSD.
A < B implies A != B, you're being redundant
This is exactly the kind of ill reasoning that I expected
I love how the systemd fanboys are trying to censor this
You're accidentally correct in that PCs generally don't keep their RTC in sync (they have better time bases after booting up); other than that what a trainwreck of a comment. Yikes.
timesync is the best tool because it barely does what you will settle for. Okay. Or are you trying to say that a more precise time will somehow harm your desktops?
core dumps, mainly.
The irony is that while this improves NTP, "modern linux" uses "systemd-timesync" instead which kinda sorta knows how to get the time of day from one server with undefined tolerances, throwing away decades of work by intelligent people that went into making NTP what it is now.
Who cares, right. What did those nerds know about clocks and time anyway.
Unless you're trying to obtain a certificate for the administration interface of an internal device on your home LAN, such as a router, printer, or NAS. Then you have to not only use Let's Encrypt but also buy a domain.
Or you build your own local CA, which, while the openssl UI admittedly is a bit hairy, is not an outrageously difficult thing to do.