SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
It isn't a perfect solution but its utility is nonzero...you still can't be sure that your logs haven't been tampered with if the verification goes well but there is a higher probability that they haven't vs. unsigned logs.
This "probability" is claimed out of thin air. There is no evidence for that.
I do not see where I have to defend myself against your point of view. Where and how does Slackware prevent you from running your computers as powerful servers? Slackware is versatile enough that it allows you to run a computer as a shiny desktop for daily use, but just as easily, Slackware can run without monitor in a datacenter acting as a server. I do both and I am happy with both.
I do not think I have offended or insulted you yet? perhaps I should, because of those ridiculous 50-character wide text columns you keep posting!
I can justify my ideas about how systemd is detrimental to the UNIX (and even Linux, judging by the udev fork)... while at the same time praising a company for attempting to bring a closed-source gaming platform to Linux. If you still see a conflict there, then you still have not managed to explain it to me.
Eric
A lot of brown noses here show respect to you while
they are just using you. You could win my respect but
responding me in that way I know you don't deserve it.
I am talking with total honesty and what you've answered
about Slackware seems a TV announce.
The conflict is not in your opinion or in what you do.
Do you have some Rock Star complex? It is just that
in practice all is more related than people assume.
I've explained it clearly and my target wasn't you but
the new users.
Again I am not attacking you, I've just quoted you to
express a related opinion of mine. Why do you think
you must "defend yourself"?
And about my stupid 54 colums. The same I've said to
others, insulting here is cheap and coward.
Hm, after addressing me like this, you've won nothing but the fact that I'll ignore further posts from you.
Remember that the only insults (to me, the other posters, the resident moderator and the owner of this forum) have come from you. Not from me.
A lot of brown noses here show respect to you while
they are just using you. You could win my respect but
responding me in that way I know you don't deserve it.
I am talking with total honesty and what you've answered
about Slackware seems a TV announce.
Walter
I really do not understand why you would speak to one of our main developers like this. All Slackers owe Eric a lot for his tireless efforts with developing Slackware, creating packages, and his tutorials. I am very thankful for all that Eric does for our community.
I am mystified by your hostile attitude.
Following a private conversation I had with eloi today by email plus reading what he just wrote on this thread, I am arriving at the conclusion that whatever I can say, I will be always wrong and he will be always right. So I will simply ignore him from now on.
Hm, after addressing me like this, you've won nothing but the fact that I'll ignore further posts from you.
Remember that the only insults (to me, the other posters, the resident moderator and the owner of this forum) have come from you. Not from me.
Eric
With empty answers like yours why would I suffer you
ignore me?
The same kind of answer that you did me when I asked
you about dhcpcd in the article of your blog (I linked
in other of my posts here). The typical "We all had no
problem, you are the only one that have a problem".
Tell me Mr Democracy. Why all BSDs, Debian, Redhat
and derivatives uses dhclient? See how I can use the
same demagogic tricks? But I don't, all my opinions
are mine and based in my experience. I do not talk in
the name of others or hypocritically in defense of
others. And if I see that I am wrong I have the eggs
to admit and apologize.
If an honest approach annoy or even insult some
guys here then yes, I've insulted you all.
The plans for creating this OS have their foundations in systemd completely. If you THINK for a second this is false, then read this WhiteBoard DIRECTLY off GNOME's webpage:
This IS the future of Linux if Poettering has his way, if we allow Red Hat to take control, and let out of control developers do as they please without a system of checks and balances... Linux isn't going to be Linux anymore. It's going to be something else, and a far cry from what it originally was.
The plans for creating this OS have their foundations in systemd completely. If you THINK for a second this is false, then read this WhiteBoard DIRECTLY off GNOME's webpage:
This IS the future of Linux if Poettering has his way, if we allow Red Hat to take control, and let out of control developers do as they please without a system of checks and balances... Linux isn't going to be Linux anymore. It's going to be something else, and a far cry from what it originally was.
Linux isn't just GNOME. In fact, I do not like GNOME3. I used it once, and I hated it. I retried it recently with the new 3.4 version, and it's the same thing. The UI is so crappy. So if GNOME3 add systemd as an hard dependency, I don't give a crap because I don't use GNOME3. In fact, it's pretty stupid to make any desktop environnement as an hard dependance of a init or vice-versa.
Eloi, can you please stop with the abusive line wrap ? I think everyone is really pissed off by this.
Hidden in all of the debate about how anti-Linux systemd may be, is one tiny but very important feature of systemd: the service manager will be able to run services that are not POSIX compatible. The oft-cited example is cgroups, which enhances the legacy process ID (PID) method of assigning processes to PIDs to user groups.
cgroups is something that has been in Linux for quite a while, but init won't turn it on because it is not POSIX-compatible. And it's only one of many Linux features that systemd works with and init doesn't. This has led some to criticize systemd for being too "Linux specific."
and...
Quote:
Poettering's response to this argument is brusque and to the point: "There's a reason why systemd is more powerful than other init systems: we don't limit ourselves to POSIX, we actually want to give the user/administrator the power that Linux can offer you."
I thought originally by definition and legality, all Linux distributions had to comply with POSIX standards at their foundation of the operating system distributed and that non-POSIX complaint software had to be limited to optional usage, as per defined in it's licensing.
I thought originally by definition and legality, all Linux distributions had to comply with POSIX standards at their foundation of the operating system distributed and that non-POSIX complaint software had to be limited to optional usage, as per defined in it's licensing.
Are there any Linux distributions that are certified as POSIX compliant? As far as I know, we're not bound to adhere to those standards.
And the remark about "init will not turn on cgroups" seems way off the mark to me. Sure, init itself won't, be we're turning it on in rc.S, and that works just fine.
Are there any Linux distributions that are certified as POSIX compliant? As far as I know, we're not bound to adhere to those standards.
And the remark about "init will not turn on cgroups" seems way off the mark to me. Sure, init itself won't, be we're turning it on in rc.S, and that works just fine.
and the "RPM packaging" standard as well... Nobody really takes the standards seriously.
A lot of brown noses here show respect to you while they are just using you. You could win my respect but responding me in that way I know you don't deserve it. I am talking with total honesty (..)
...it's like they say: a good deed never goes unpunished ;-p
Weird as it may sound I think I kind of understand what you have been trying to say in your past posts but since English isn't your first language you had trouble expressing yourself articulately and you let yourself be sidetracked in the most obscure ways. That said, if your command of the English language is good enough to provoke and insult fellow LQ members repeatedly, accuse a LQ moderator of trolling and remain argumentative after being warned repeatedly then it is good enough to receive this final warning.
Now hear this CFB:
Warning:
You have violated these LQ Rules:
4. Do not post if you do not have anything constructive to say in the post.
7. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.
Additionally you have repeatedly and deliberately violated a moderators directive, valuing your own posts over what's good for the LQ community.
It's time for a wee timeout.
Feel free to email me when you're done with introspection.
Last edited by unSpawn; 08-28-2012 at 09:06 PM.
Reason: //Typo
Are there any Linux distributions that are certified as POSIX compliant? As far as I know, we're not bound to adhere to those standards.
And the remark about "init will not turn on cgroups" seems way off the mark to me. Sure, init itself won't, be we're turning it on in rc.S, and that works just fine.
Yes, but isn't rc.S completely separate from the boot init used by Slackware?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
