There's a saying in my native language: "Higher trees catch more wind". I think the most obvious reason why this gets more attention now is the size of the organisation doing the product placement.
So, given your admiration for an economy driven by government land grants and the US army genociding the inhabitants of such lands, coupled with an other aspect of fascism, reverence of power, how does this not apply to you?
The question was rhetorical, by the way. There is no way you can come up with a rational answer to deny it, you'll probably just come up with another deluded rant.
Calling government led genocide of natives "winning in the marketplace". Dear God, I knew you were mad, but you get worse by the day.
You specified the 19th century US economy as ideal. Since westward expansion was a large driver of that, you don't get to shift the goalposts: your ideal economy was built on force of arms.
Of course you try to shift the attention to my slavery quip, because that draws attention away from the real meat.
My 'beloved' free market created the USA economy of 19th century
Wait, that economy that was based upon forcibly (as in, using Armed Forces) taking land from the natives and the government redistributing it to settlers in the form of land grants? That 19th century USA economy?
Or do you mean the other one, built on trade in goods farmed by slaves?
Yes, but as GP proves, the haters don't want to make any effort to understand systemd, because that would mean they would actually have to put some effort into maintaining their systems.
Putting badly-founded rants on the Internet just looks more impressive to a certain mind.
And to be fair, when I read about the boot-time mount behaviour of systemd, my first thought was "WTF?". I understand the logic, so I can live with it, but ideal it is not, IMO.
Ubuntu, releasing beta quality software with patches just to make it Ubuntu-specific, has done more to damage Linux on the desktop than it contributed, in my opinion.
It would help if you stuck to the facts, instead of selling more BS, like all the other anti-systemd merchants.
Mount works the way it always does, it does not invoke systemd. Automatic mounting at boot and on other system events is handled by systemd, but the mount command is what it always has been.
Again, another hater shows that they haven't even done the barest minimal testing on systemd to see what it actually does.
In the old days, sysadmins read the documentation of a package before they installed it, instead of just blithely installing everything and then complaining that it doesn't work as expected.
Here's s a tip, junior: if you're on a system where you'd expect to have a mostly static resolv.conf, you don't install resolvconf. The use case for resolvconf is machines that change networks rapidly, such as laptops.
Next time, RTFM before you complain on the Internet and make a fool of yourself in passing.
For $3 more I get dropped off in front of my office, they pick me up on my schedule, I get a real seat belt, appropriate heating/A/C, listen to NPR, nobody asking for money or sitting next to someone not having showered for a week etc etc.
Oh yes, God forbid you little princesses should ever see the masses up close
No. Systemd supporters give plenty of technical reasons for their support. In my case (for one thing) it is wanting event based processing of service management. Systemd offers that, sysV rc doesn't. Like it or not, that's a technical reason.
On the other hand, you anti guys keep bringing up things like this shit, or 'not Unix philosophy', or 'monolithic hairball'. Those are not technical arguments.
Do me a favour, and refrain from answering until you can actually muster a technical argument against systemd.
Once again you just disregard already given information. I summarized the bug and the related posts, but since you are going to whine regardless, I'll have Jonathan Corbet of LWN do the honours.
His article has all the links, to the bug and the related discussion. Of course you are going to cherry pick single posts again, but at least the peanut gallery will get to see who is being disingenuous here.
And this is my last word in this entire discussion. I have nothing to prove; you just have to show that you can do more than cherry pick to justify your irrational hatreds.
No. The discussion of Kay Siever's undiplomatic initial handling of the bug split off from the main thread. Kay has been put under supervision of Greg KH, and that was it.
After that, the kernel devs and the systemd devs produced a solution.
Again, you're cherry-picking posts to support your worldview, disregarding all else, and projecting your dishonesty on others. As I said: Liar.
No, you did not refute my claim. You ignored the entire bug, focusing just on Lennart's final conclusion. That's cherry picking.
Seeing as that the bug report, the LKML and systemd mailing lists came up with a full solution of the bug, you are a liar if you say that the systemd devs don't fix bugs.
Here's the full solution: using the generic 'debug' parameter of the kernel command line to turn on systemd debugging is the correct way to use that parameter, as stated by Linus himself. What is incorrect is generating too much logging for the kernel message buffer; this problem is fixed by fixing the original assert bug in systemd, and by Lennart's design decision to defer as much logging as possible until userspace is up.
It's all there in the bug and related discussion. You refuted nothing. You are a liar. And an Internet blowhard, a keyboard warrior.
Especially the first one is a clanger. If you can't support systemd on technical grounds without getting threats, something is very toxic indeed.
And no, that first post is not directly related to the Debian Constitution. That the idiotic GR trying to override the Technical Committee decision two weeks before the Jessie freeze is inspired by this kind of drivel, and that the Constitution makes these kind of purely political overrides of the technical decisions possible is rather evident though.
You don't have to write a very complex daemon to do that. Just write a dbus listener that subscribes to service start events on the system bus. I could do something like that in about 2 hours with a few lines of Perl.
In fact, on a discussion list for 'Linux Experts' I provided one such script in 30 minutes when someone asked for a way to react to new devices being added to the system.
The only EB I had access to until now has been the 1911 edition. But that is full of British Imperial bias. Do newer editions finally mention the Raid on the Medway to De Ruyter's biography, for example?
Dude, someone posted a list of possible verification mechanisms straight from the systemd documentation, and you called them guesses. Go get some treatment for your projection issues, ok?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a saying in my native language: "Higher trees catch more wind". I think the most obvious reason why this gets more attention now is the size of the organisation doing the product placement.
So, given your admiration for an economy driven by government land grants and the US army genociding the inhabitants of such lands, coupled with an other aspect of fascism, reverence of power, how does this not apply to you?
The question was rhetorical, by the way. There is no way you can come up with a rational answer to deny it, you'll probably just come up with another deluded rant.
Calling government led genocide of natives "winning in the marketplace". Dear God, I knew you were mad, but you get worse by the day.
And see here the naked sociopathy without any disguise: "Might makes right". Scratch a Randian, and find a fascist.
You specified the 19th century US economy as ideal. Since westward expansion was a large driver of that, you don't get to shift the goalposts: your ideal economy was built on force of arms.
Of course you try to shift the attention to my slavery quip, because that draws attention away from the real meat.
Wait, that economy that was based upon forcibly (as in, using Armed Forces) taking land from the natives and the government redistributing it to settlers in the form of land grants? That 19th century USA economy?
Or do you mean the other one, built on trade in goods farmed by slaves?
Yes, but as GP proves, the haters don't want to make any effort to understand systemd, because that would mean they would actually have to put some effort into maintaining their systems.
Putting badly-founded rants on the Internet just looks more impressive to a certain mind.
And to be fair, when I read about the boot-time mount behaviour of systemd, my first thought was "WTF?". I understand the logic, so I can live with it, but ideal it is not, IMO.
No, you couldn't unfuck what Ubuntu broke
Ubuntu, releasing beta quality software with patches just to make it Ubuntu-specific, has done more to damage Linux on the desktop than it contributed, in my opinion.
Good. Fuck off already.
It would help if you stuck to the facts, instead of selling more BS, like all the other anti-systemd merchants.
Mount works the way it always does, it does not invoke systemd. Automatic mounting at boot and on other system events is handled by systemd, but the mount command is what it always has been.
Again, another hater shows that they haven't even done the barest minimal testing on systemd to see what it actually does.
In the old days, sysadmins read the documentation of a package before they installed it, instead of just blithely installing everything and then complaining that it doesn't work as expected.
Here's s a tip, junior: if you're on a system where you'd expect to have a mostly static resolv.conf, you don't install resolvconf. The use case for resolvconf is machines that change networks rapidly, such as laptops.
Next time, RTFM before you complain on the Internet and make a fool of yourself in passing.
Oh yes, God forbid you little princesses should ever see the masses up close
Just remember what happened to Marie-Antoinette.
Was it aimed at you?
He said, posting on a government-created network
Yup, libertard describes you well.
Actually, that was a valid technical argument. You just disagree, but you don't even have the decency to admit it.
No. Systemd supporters give plenty of technical reasons for their support. In my case (for one thing) it is wanting event based processing of service management. Systemd offers that, sysV rc doesn't. Like it or not, that's a technical reason.
On the other hand, you anti guys keep bringing up things like this shit, or 'not Unix philosophy', or 'monolithic hairball'. Those are not technical arguments.
Do me a favour, and refrain from answering until you can actually muster a technical argument against systemd.
Once again you just disregard already given information. I summarized the bug and the related posts, but since you are going to whine regardless, I'll have Jonathan Corbet of LWN do the honours.
His article has all the links, to the bug and the related discussion. Of course you are going to cherry pick single posts again, but at least the peanut gallery will get to see who is being disingenuous here.
And this is my last word in this entire discussion. I have nothing to prove; you just have to show that you can do more than cherry pick to justify your irrational hatreds.
No. The discussion of Kay Siever's undiplomatic initial handling of the bug split off from the main thread. Kay has been put under supervision of Greg KH, and that was it.
After that, the kernel devs and the systemd devs produced a solution.
Again, you're cherry-picking posts to support your worldview, disregarding all else, and projecting your dishonesty on others. As I said: Liar.
No, you did not refute my claim. You ignored the entire bug, focusing just on Lennart's final conclusion. That's cherry picking.
Seeing as that the bug report, the LKML and systemd mailing lists came up with a full solution of the bug, you are a liar if you say that the systemd devs don't fix bugs.
Here's the full solution: using the generic 'debug' parameter of the kernel command line to turn on systemd debugging is the correct way to use that parameter, as stated by Linus himself. What is incorrect is generating too much logging for the kernel message buffer; this problem is fixed by fixing the original assert bug in systemd, and by Lennart's design decision to defer as much logging as possible until userspace is up.
It's all there in the bug and related discussion. You refuted nothing. You are a liar. And an Internet blowhard, a keyboard warrior.
Yes I see, you're cherrypicking again.
Fuck off.
In fact, someone on the Phoronix forums posted a bunch of links to Joey's debian-devel posts which seems to bear this out.
Especially the first one is a clanger. If you can't support systemd on technical grounds without getting threats, something is very toxic indeed.
And no, that first post is not directly related to the Debian Constitution. That the idiotic GR trying to override the Technical Committee decision two weeks before the Jessie freeze is inspired by this kind of drivel, and that the Constitution makes these kind of purely political overrides of the technical decisions possible is rather evident though.
Liar
Really, if you are going to post your ideology-blinkered screeds, do your research first. This makes you look ridiculous.
You don't have to write a very complex daemon to do that. Just write a dbus listener that subscribes to service start events on the system bus. I could do something like that in about 2 hours with a few lines of Perl.
In fact, on a discussion list for 'Linux Experts' I provided one such script in 30 minutes when someone asked for a way to react to new devices being added to the system.
The only EB I had access to until now has been the 1911 edition. But that is full of British Imperial bias. Do newer editions finally mention the Raid on the Medway to De Ruyter's biography, for example?
Dude, someone posted a list of possible verification mechanisms straight from the systemd documentation, and you called them guesses. Go get some treatment for your projection issues, ok?
Perhaps that is because you are so wedded to your biases that you are not reading the answers provided. As I said, irrational.