now thats complete bollox. there too many button pushes, pop ups and stupid questions on installation of windows software. installing softeware is stupidly easy on linux
"It is not the old way. It is the simple way, combining small and flexible tools to achieve complex results easily and with minimal component maintenance. I should not have to explain this to you." - I do understand the Unix way but from what i see Linux is evolving into its own way. You can stick to the old Unix way on your own servers/desktops and fork linux accordingly if the new way doesn't suit you.
"It's not progress. It's regression. " - and thats your opinion
good grief, your misunderstanding of what i'm saying knows no bounds. Can you categorically prove to anyone that no-one at SCO ever contributed code to SYSV? I'm not arguing ownership of the code, just that SCO developers contributed code under GPL to SYSV development.
to be honest, i don;t care which system is on my desktop as long as it works and it gets better and faster. i'm long passed fiddling with system scripts, i just write scripts for personal things like backups etc
We have Unix before Linux so why not stick to Unix. All the "we had this before" arguments are pointless in an environment that moves on, "the old way" is always deemed the best is a nonsense argument. Should we still be riding horses to work, using steam trains, etc etc
There is nothing to stop you going your own way if this kind of progress is an anathema to you, here's a site that might be interesting to you. http://www.linuxfromscratch.or...
"System V Release 5 was developed in 1997 by the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) as a merger of SCO OpenServer (an SVR3-derivative) and UnixWare, with a focus on large-scale servers" - thats from wikipedia as well. so the chances are there must be some code in SysV developed in the bowels of SCO which is GPL'd, and thats what i meant about getting rid of SCO code. And yes, i have worked on SCO servers albeit in the late 90's and early 2000s, we supported over 700 in remote sites, we tried pushing Linux as a replacement but the corporations were having none of it.
Its answers the questions made by people who seem to know nothing about systemd but continue to trash it regardless.
your idea of monolithic seems to be completely different to mine, systemd seems to be described as modular to me as it has 69 binaries. Monolithic to my mind is a single binary.
you could try reading up on it. Here's a taster for you..
"systemd is a system and service manager for Linux, compatible with SysV and LSB init scripts. systemd provides aggressive parallelization capabilities, uses socket and D-Bus activation for starting services, offers on-demand starting of daemons, keeps track of processes using Linux control groups, supports snapshotting and restoring of the system state, maintains mount and automount points and implements an elaborate transactional dependency-based service control logic. It can work as a drop-in replacement for sysvinit. "
thats the whole point. if old versions of MS Office can't open or format other versions properly, you have the same compatibility problem. Data formats must be OPEN then all programs that use it, can freely interoperate and then bad formatting is a programming issue not a data format issue
Slashdot Mirror
now thats complete bollox. there too many button pushes, pop ups and stupid questions on installation of windows software. installing softeware is stupidly easy on linux
Dont forget Anti-virus, licence management etc costs as well
Google pays nothing, Samsung etc pay
the hole was caused by CFCs etc hence the huge change of not using CFCs in any appliances etc anymore
The Lumias look like they are a "Toys R Us" product designed for children
"It is not the old way. It is the simple way, combining small and flexible tools to achieve complex results easily and with minimal component maintenance. I should not have to explain this to you." - I do understand the Unix way but from what i see Linux is evolving into its own way. You can stick to the old Unix way on your own servers/desktops and fork linux accordingly if the new way doesn't suit you.
"It's not progress. It's regression. " - and thats your opinion
good grief, your misunderstanding of what i'm saying knows no bounds. Can you categorically prove to anyone that no-one at SCO ever contributed code to SYSV? I'm not arguing ownership of the code, just that SCO developers contributed code under GPL to SYSV development.
What no longer runs?
its more of a case "99.99% users don't want to" which is the reality
He says freedesktop.org is just a repository for code and documentation, i can't find your reference
to be honest, i don;t care which system is on my desktop as long as it works and it gets better and faster. i'm long passed fiddling with system scripts, i just write scripts for personal things like backups etc
I've no idea, why not email them directly as see if you can get an answer. I'm sure a lot of people would like to know the answer
Thats your choice, don't use it.
We have Unix before Linux so why not stick to Unix.
All the "we had this before" arguments are pointless in an environment that moves on, "the old way" is always deemed the best is a nonsense argument. Should we still be riding horses to work, using steam trains, etc etc
There is nothing to stop you going your own way if this kind of progress is an anathema to you, here's a site that might be interesting to you. http://www.linuxfromscratch.or...
"System V Release 5 was developed in 1997 by the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) as a merger of SCO OpenServer (an SVR3-derivative) and UnixWare, with a focus on large-scale servers" - thats from wikipedia as well. so the chances are there must be some code in SysV developed in the bowels of SCO which is GPL'd, and thats what i meant about getting rid of SCO code. And yes, i have worked on SCO servers albeit in the late 90's and early 2000s, we supported over 700 in remote sites, we tried pushing Linux as a replacement but the corporations were having none of it.
Its answers the questions made by people who seem to know nothing about systemd but continue to trash it regardless.
your idea of monolithic seems to be completely different to mine, systemd seems to be described as modular to me as it has 69 binaries. Monolithic to my mind is a single binary.
you could try reading up on it. Here's a taster for you..
"systemd is a system and service manager for Linux, compatible with SysV and LSB init scripts. systemd provides aggressive parallelization capabilities, uses socket and D-Bus activation for starting services, offers on-demand starting of daemons, keeps track of processes using Linux control groups, supports snapshotting and restoring of the system state, maintains mount and automount points and implements an elaborate transactional dependency-based service control logic. It can work as a drop-in replacement for sysvinit. "
and if you are in the mood for reading, here's a longer introduction.
http://0pointer.de/blog/projec...
its probably getting rid of SCO stuff from Linux as well as its a Linux specific project
Have you had a read of this? Myth buster for systemd. http://0pointer.de/blog/projec...
is that "posing" or "posting"? :o)
No, thats an abomination of Gnome, thats not systemd's fault.
thats the whole point. if old versions of MS Office can't open or format other versions properly, you have the same compatibility problem. Data formats must be OPEN then all programs that use it, can freely interoperate and then bad formatting is a programming issue not a data format issue
yep, i'm sure most people would do it as a matter of principle especially to the RIAA etc
they throw stones at the OS mainly
i hope you've reported the bug....
but is the icecap as thick as it used to be???
but not as we know it
don't be such an arsehole, how do you know if English is the posters 1st, 2nd, or 3rd language?