Quote:
This sounds like Ubuntu users have to make an extra step after installing Ubuntu, by removing another init system to install systemd. Whether in fact they simply do not have a choice. Useless, pointless thread. Splitting. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Everybody likes Trump. So must be a good thing.
Quote:
My vote in the poll was don't like it. So I run something else. Code:
Init: SysVinit runlevel: 5 Gcc sys: 4.9.2 |
Quote:
Quote:
And also can you expand on your answer, as your insights are always very interesting to me. ;) |
My own position is
1. I trust the developers of the various distros that use systemd to know what they're doing. They can't all be wrong. The fact that they are developers says something: they obviously know more than I, considering my failure with LFS! 2. It may be difficult to learn, but why should I learn it, any more than I've learned all the ins and outs of System V init? In nearly 20 years, I've only had to reconfigure that twice, and I was able to find instructions on the web. I dare say that I'll have a similar experience when I get round to running a systemd distro. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
With Casey at the switch and a full head of steam, an epic train wreck seems almost inevitable. More happy than ever to be on a different set of tracks! |
Quote:
Reminds me of a recent rant by Linus about Kay and crew regarding systemd: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...md-4175603808/ |
It bears repeating that Unix was designed for a stand-alone minicomputer. And, for many dozens of years thereafter, computer technology had not yet progressed to the point where we could start deploying distributed solutions that might span dozens, hundreds, or, yes, thousands of machines.
The systemd design team felt that the legacy concepts and facilities simply could not "scale up" to a large number of machines, especially if those machines were in distant locations that could never physically be reached. They chose to take on a very big and ambitious (IMHO: too B&A ...) agenda, and it was very obvious from the start that their target audience was large-scale deployments. But it's helpful even on a small scale. I can run "batch jobs." I can gather all of the logs from all of my half-dozen-or-so virtual computers into one place as one log. I can make changes that affect more than one computer at the same time. I can schedule periodic activities using a service-model that is far more sophisticated than "a simple timer." (It can be made adaptive to change: the mere fact that an activity took a few seconds more than usual is no longer something that must be programmed-for in scripts. "Yay!") To me, there's nothing "philosophical" nor "sentimental" about any of this. It's strictly "where the rubber meets the road ... my(!) road!" And, frankly: "If you can learn <this>, then you can easily learn <that>." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Maybe, a solution: the GNU GPL or GPL license could be adapted to avoid falling into the hands of giants such as Gnome/Ubuntu/Google... There is no return for Linux once corporations take control over. Look Android, it's Linux, and your life and phone data easily into the Google Inc. hands. Anyhow, there is always the possibility to move to BSD or to rewrite your own kernel. Let's call it FreeUnix. |
Quote:
Here's a list of some distros described as being "non-free" by the Free Software Foundation. https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html You'll find the BSDs on that list. :) It's always a good idea to decide who it is that you're actually fighting against, and why. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the code looks like an endless loop to me I don't code in C but it looks to me that all your example dose is open window after after window after window after window until the power switch is turned off |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM. |