LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
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
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 05-16-2013, 02:11 PM   #136
ttk
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Location: Sebastopol, CA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 168
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 81

Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
Mainly because containers have absolutely nothing to do with with your initial real-hardware boot init.
That was my thought exactly. Lots of things can use cgroups whether the init system "supports" it or not.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-16-2013, 02:11 PM   #137
Woodsman
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Slackware 14.0
Posts: 3,253

Rep: Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481Reputation: 481
Most nights I power down and that means restarting most days. I pay little attention to boot times. Well, unless boot times become excessive like a certain proprietary system. All of my systems boot to the desktop in about a minute. Heck, I need that long to clean my belly button each morning, scratch my -ss, pick my nose, and otherwise generally just stare into space because I'm not a morning person. :-)

At one time I recall we started a conversation about ways to improve Slackware boot times. Not high on my priority list, but I recall that most (but not all) of the init scripts could be converted to ash. I don't know how much boot time that would save, but even that kind of change would require significant testing among the community.

I'm not a fan of systemd because of the use of C. I'm not a C programmer although I can read the basics and could learn more. I realize configuration files used in systemd are not C. Regardless, one of the features that attracts me to free/libre software is the ease with which I can customize the init process. I would miss that with systemd.

I disagree with udev being absorbed into the systemd sources. That is one area I wish Linus would step up and stop, requiring udev to again be separate. Yet somehow we'll survive if a fork of udev is necessary to avoid systemd.
 
Old 05-16-2013, 02:28 PM   #138
elvis4526
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Posts: 111

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Keep in mind that they want systemd to be the core foundation of an OS.
It is not suppose to be JUST an init system.

When you have that in mind, I think it make sense that udev, session tracking, etc.. are "swallowed" by systemd.
 
Old 05-16-2013, 09:24 PM   #139
perbh
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 204

Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis4526 View Post
I think you guys misunderstand me (which is maybe just as well).
I couldn't care less about gnome being hardwired to systemd or not - as far as I'm concerned - gnome is d-e-a-d.
What does worry me is that systemd will be dependent upon gnome - ie if you want systemd (which I don't - but it may be rammed down my throat), I am deeply worried about gnome coming along for the ride ... (and that's what I have read somewhere - though dont ask me to quote it - just read it in the passing)
 
Old 05-16-2013, 09:30 PM   #140
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,748

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis4526
It is not suppose to be JUST an init system.
... but earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
It's no more than a ******* init system.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4946879

This is a prime example of what I had previously said... Even the people promoting systemd appear to be confused...

What hope does anyone else have of making any sense of this thing?
 
6 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-16-2013, 09:40 PM   #141
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, Slackware-14.1, PCBSD-10.0
Posts: 2,408
Blog Entries: 14

Rep: Reputation: 585Reputation: 585Reputation: 585Reputation: 585Reputation: 585Reputation: 585
The good part, for now anyway, is that udev is still somewhat modular to systemd, and while part of it, can act independent of it. This may change as to why Gentoo sponsored the forked eudev project, and why projects like mdev and hotplug2 came about to keep a segregated system device manager project active.

Oddly, the original Hotplug as a project is inactive, but not officially dead and is still supported through the Linux kernel, or at least was, but patches for it still exist. I know Android OS uses it in some ways and that some of the WRT projects use Hotplug and Hotplug2 for their device management daemons.

I highly doubt that systemd will be ever popular enough to make it a core Linux project, and since many alternatives exist like OpenRC, sysvinit, bsdinit, and even Upstart. If systemd can be replaced, so can udev, and that makes it less than necessary in the long run.
 
Old 05-17-2013, 12:36 AM   #142
elvis4526
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Posts: 111

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
... but earlier:


http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4946879

This is a prime example of what I had previously said... Even the people promoting systemd appear to be confused...

What hope does anyone else have of making any sense of this thing?
I'm not promoting, actually I'm saying what I read on Lennart G+ feed, the systemd list and on his blog.
I can show you if you want the part where he say all I said previously.
 
Old 05-17-2013, 12:43 AM   #143
elvis4526
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Posts: 111

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by perbh View Post
I think you guys misunderstand me (which is maybe just as well).
I couldn't care less about gnome being hardwired to systemd or not - as far as I'm concerned - gnome is d-e-a-d.
What does worry me is that systemd will be dependent upon gnome - ie if you want systemd (which I don't - but it may be rammed down my throat), I am deeply worried about gnome coming along for the ride ... (and that's what I have read somewhere - though dont ask me to quote it - just read it in the passing)
This would mean exterminating all other DE and WM out there.
This won't happen, this is not the plan.
If it would be the plan, I wouldn't be defending something like that.
The plan like I said, is to make systemd the core foundation of an OS, THAT'S ALL.
Like I already said, almost everything can be disabled at compile-time if you don't want to much feature creep.
 
Old 05-17-2013, 12:46 AM   #144
elvis4526
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Posts: 111

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
The good part, for now anyway, is that udev is still somewhat modular to systemd, and while part of it, can act independent of it. This may change as to why Gentoo sponsored the forked eudev project, and why projects like mdev and hotplug2 came about to keep a segregated system device manager project active.

Oddly, the original Hotplug as a project is inactive, but not officially dead and is still supported through the Linux kernel, or at least was, but patches for it still exist. I know Android OS uses it in some ways and that some of the WRT projects use Hotplug and Hotplug2 for their device management daemons.

I highly doubt that systemd will be ever popular enough to make it a core Linux project, and since many alternatives exist like OpenRC, sysvinit, bsdinit, and even Upstart. If systemd can be replaced, so can udev, and that makes it less than necessary in the long run.

Just saying, the eudev project is only a learning and fun experience for the gentoo developpers. Don't count on this to be full udev replacement, they said it clearly at a conference.
 
Old 05-17-2013, 05:48 AM   #145
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,103

Rep: Reputation: 333Reputation: 333Reputation: 333Reputation: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
"Lennart Poettering is like a drug dealer. He promises you a wonderful whimsical high, only to have
you crash and burn in the end needing more of his poison, a trip to detox, or maybe the morgue." - ReaperX7
I'm not exactly a fan of the gentleman in question, his ideas or his software, but this kind of excessively personal, if not defamatory, rhetoric reflects badly on us as Slackware users.
 
11 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-17-2013, 08:58 AM   #146
Kallaste
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 343

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis4526 View Post
Keep in mind that they want systemd to be the core foundation of an OS.
It is not suppose to be JUST an init system.

When you have that in mind, I think it make sense that udev, session tracking, etc.. are "swallowed" by systemd.
Well since you put it that way . . .

I think an argument could be made that replacing the core foundation of an operating system with something completely foreign changes the very nature of the operating system itself. That's the problem. I think I'd rather have Linux remain Linux.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-17-2013, 09:13 AM   #147
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,318

Rep: Reputation: 353Reputation: 353Reputation: 353Reputation: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel View Post
I'm not exactly a fan of the gentleman in question, his ideas or his software, but this kind of excessively personal, if not defamatory, rhetoric reflects badly on us as Slackware users.
Give it a rest.
 
5 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-17-2013, 02:32 PM   #148
spoovy
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: London, UK
Distribution: Slackware 14; CentOS; Vyatta
Posts: 372

Rep: Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitest View Post
As always I trust Pat to make sane decisions with Slackware; I trust his judgement.
Boom.
 
Old 05-17-2013, 03:15 PM   #149
perbh
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 204

Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis4526 View Post
This would mean exterminating all other DE and WM out there.
Yeees - and so what?
Quote:
This won't happen, this is not the plan.
And do you know explicitly what their plans are? If I were RH - it might be somewhat tempting ...
Quote:
If it would be the plan, I wouldn't be defending something like that.
Maybe not - but again, do you actually _know_ what their plans are?
Quote:
The plan like I said, is to make systemd the core foundation of an OS, THAT'S ALL.
Now, that's a rather encompassing task - don't you think? Especially as there really aren't any problems with the current system ...

Last edited by perbh; 05-17-2013 at 03:16 PM.
 
Old 05-17-2013, 04:10 PM   #150
T3slider
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-14.0
Posts: 2,231

Rep: Reputation: 573Reputation: 573Reputation: 573Reputation: 573Reputation: 573Reputation: 573
Continuing to bicker about the ultimate conclusion to a slippery slope argument is rather pointless, don't you think? I don't think there has ever been any evidence anywhere in the universe to suggest that systemd will start adopting gnome components...but of course, you 'read it in passing' and have forgotten the link (which, if it actually was said, was by another person taking the slippery slope argument to its most extreme conclusions). There is no way systemd will suddenly become dependent on gnome, and as for the reverse, it won't happen immediately (as previously indicated) but no one really knows what the future holds (and thus debating the point is moot until some sort of action or serious discussion by gnome devs actually takes place). I don't think anything has changed since the last big systemd thread, so I think threads like these are a wasted effort until udev is officially integrated into systemd without the option of compiling it on its own. When that happens (and Slackware is no longer able to keep using an older version of udev), then a discussion would perhaps be warranted.

Just my opinion, of course, but if you enjoy arguing over unicorns you can keep at it.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Closed Thread

Tags
cgroups


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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Slackware: Is Systemd Inevitable? LXer Syndicated Linux News 5 07-22-2013 04:54 AM
[SOLVED] slackware and systemd fl0 Slackware 512 08-29-2012 11:07 AM
slackware and systemd (OT) eloi Slackware 44 08-24-2012 04:36 PM
[SOLVED] systemd and Slackware's future kikinovak Slackware 95 07-14-2012 11:40 AM
Boot Delay 30min: systemd-analyze blame systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service BGHolmes Fedora 0 07-27-2011 09:02 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 PM.

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