LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-13-2012, 07:31 PM   #106
sahko
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2008
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,041

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Hey!
 
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
Old 08-14-2012, 04:05 AM   #107
kikinovak
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Montpezat (South France)
Distribution: ElementaryOS, Ubuntu LTS, Slackware
Posts: 1,502

Rep: Reputation: 691Reputation: 691Reputation: 691Reputation: 691Reputation: 691Reputation: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahko View Post
Looks like it's only a matter of time before Nautilus and Totem will be hard dependencies for udev.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-14-2012, 08:29 AM   #108
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 315

Rep: Reputation: 84
If anyone is unsure of the udev motivation:

Quote:
(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
that support entirely.)
 
Old 08-14-2012, 08:51 AM   #109
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
I keep thinking over the years, why keep breaking things which work well and do it all over again? I sense a fundamental restlessness in the Open Source community that mistakes anything new as progress. Especially in Linux, I am finding the whole issue so wasteful in terms of useful brain power. Even though it might be Open Source and all that, why waste so much time reinventing the wheel when there are more important and advanced problems to solve?

Why is SysVInit considered broken these days, all of a sudden? Has Linux suddenly become so advanced that we needed an entirely new system initialization manager?

Sometimes, I feel I want to give up Linux simply because of projects that reinvent the wheel, add layer upon layer of complexity on existing solutions and then break stuff before repairing.
 
8 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-14-2012, 09:21 AM   #110
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,325

Rep: Reputation: 882Reputation: 882Reputation: 882Reputation: 882Reputation: 882Reputation: 882Reputation: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by vharishankar View Post
Why is SysVInit considered broken these days, all of a sudden? Has Linux suddenly become so advanced that we needed an entirely new system initialization manager?
Don't ask me. I'm still trying to figure out what ConsoleKit is for.
 
5 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-14-2012, 09:49 AM   #111
allend
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 3,379

Rep: Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824Reputation: 824
Quote:
Why is SysVInit considered broken these days, all of a sudden? Has Linux suddenly become so advanced that we needed an entirely new system initialization manager?
If that is a serious question, rather than being rhetorical, follow the link in post #41 for the rationale for a move to systemd.
 
Old 08-14-2012, 09:53 AM   #112
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Why do I still get emails from this unsubscribed thread?
 
Old 08-14-2012, 09:58 AM   #113
mattallmill
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2009
Location: Salina,Kansas
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 192

Rep: Reputation: 30
Wink Well said!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilgar View Post
I totally understand you, after all, I'm using Slackware for similar reasons. I just wanted to point out that, while most of the new software may initially look "bad" by our standards, "we" are not big enough in number, or at least there aren't sufficiently many high-quality projects which "we" would appreciate and which could also compete with those others. The result is, anyone who doesn't want to get stuck in obsoletion is forced to go along with the majority after a while. I like Slackware because it "resists" the "bad" changes as much as possible. But (as Pat pointed out) we may end up having to use systemd someday. I wouldn't want that to happen soon, but instead of making sharp statements early on, it is good to have an open mind and keep an eye on how things progress.
I stumbled onto this thread this morning, and I find it sad that so many people would argue about something that may or may not happen to Slackware. I say that until (or unless) it actually happens, we're better off (at the very least, for the sake of our peace of mind) not engaging in a flame war. Pat V. and the Slackware team have remained true as much as possible to the KISS philosophy, and you can bet your bottom dollar they will continue to do so.

Let's trust them to do their jobs.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-14-2012, 11:05 AM   #114
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by allend View Post
If that is a serious question, rather than being rhetorical, follow the link in post #41 for the rationale for a move to systemd.
Thanks for the pointer.

Yes, it appears to be interesting enough technically, but again, will it become the de-facto future standard as envisioned by its promoters or will it lead to a further state of confusion with multiple kinds of init systems and device management on Linux?

My biggest objection is every time something new comes up reinventing existing functionality, it takes time to stabilize and get things working properly the way it was before. A lot of code would have to be rewritten to get things to work uniformly with the new system. And just to get back the functionality already existing with the old system.
 
Old 08-14-2012, 11:08 AM   #115
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by vharishankar View Post
Thanks for the pointer.

Yes, it appears to be interesting enough technically, but again, will it become the de-facto future standard as envisioned by its promoters or will it lead to a further state of confusion with multiple kinds of init systems and device management on Linux?

My biggest objection is every time something new comes up reinventing existing functionality, it takes time to stabilize and get things working properly the way it was before. A lot of code would have to be rewritten to get things to work uniformly with the new system. And just to get back the functionality already existing with the old system.
why not just let it be. if it doesnt work out. then it will be ignored. i am currently using it happily with no problems. enjoying my fast boots and shut offs.
 
Old 08-14-2012, 11:11 AM   #116
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury305 View Post
why not just let it be. if it doesnt work out. then it will be ignored. i am currently using it happily with no problems. enjoying my fast boots and shut offs.
Well, I am going to give it a whirl on Debian and see for myself. I would like to see for myself what systemd offers.

Just one question. Does this involve getting rid of SysVinit completely in a way that it cannot be used as a fallback? I ask because I would like the option to revert to SysVinit without having to reinstall.
 
Old 08-14-2012, 11:16 AM   #117
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by vharishankar View Post
Well, I am going to give it a whirl on Debian and see for myself. I would like to see for myself what systemd offers.

Just one question. Does this involve getting rid of SysVinit completely in a way that it cannot be used as a fallback? I ask because I would like the option to revert to SysVinit without having to reinstall.
yes it totally gets rid of your sys v init.

I am happy with 3 different standards of distros. 1 uses sys v (centos) the other systemd (fedora) and Slackware uses both BSD and Sys V combined. They all have their specific purpose and audience.

I find it foolish to spread FUD over Microsoft, Sun, Red Hat... etc. big corps. Its like in the book 48 laws of power. To build a Cult you need to have a common enemy you can blame everything on.

This fear mongering doesn't work. In the end what works works.

Red Hat has contributed a lot to Linux. Linux Kernel is the most important part of a Linux OS. So how is Red Hat and its developers "enemies"... I don't get it.

Last edited by Mercury305; 08-14-2012 at 11:18 AM.
 
Old 08-14-2012, 11:23 AM   #118
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Hmm... seems there are still some issues with systemd http://wiki.debian.org/systemd

If it get rids of sysvinit entirely (as I expected it would be the case), I think I'll wait.

As such, I am not blaming anybody myself, but fail to see the need for something new reinventing the wheel again and again, wasting so much time when there are bigger and more important problems to be solved. Particularly as I feel SysVinit was adequate for the job all these years.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-14-2012, 11:50 AM   #119
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
I read the interesting link on post #41 with interest and from the posting and the discussion related to it, it appears a lot like systemd is the classic case of a solution searching for a problem to solve rather than the other way round.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-14-2012, 12:39 PM   #120
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Rep: Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by vharishankar View Post
I read the interesting link on post #41 with interest and from the posting and the discussion related to it, it appears a lot like systemd is the classic case of a solution searching for a problem to solve rather than the other way round.
It seems systemd moving forward for now. Arch Linux is transitioning to it very soon and so are a bunch of others. I say, give it a try and see if you like it. That's what I'm going to do.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Informaton on systemd init system? arashi256 Linux - Newbie 1 06-04-2011 07:06 PM
LXer: openSUSE 11.4 M6 Kills HAL, Brings WebYaST, Avoids SystemD LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-28-2011 11:50 PM
LXer: This week at LWN: Systemd and Fedora 14 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-07-2010 01:00 AM
LXer: Systemd Test Day on Tuesday 2010/09/07 LXer Syndicated Linux News 5 09-06-2010 10:52 AM
About Slackware 9.1 boot disk?? ftp://ftp.kpn.be/pub/linux/slackware/slackware-9.1-is AL3OMDAH Slackware 4 04-18-2007 09:54 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration