LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-25-2019, 04:04 AM   #106
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
Money?
Why not start with a git repo on any number of free platforms?
Because of the scope and complexity of one project that is one project and at the same time branches and contributes to other projects to be viable itself, I feel like it needs to be organized in a particular way. Sure, the release candidate will be released on open platforms, but the initial development I think will need to be managed tightly, especially if there is to be a monetary bounty system to draw developers in addition to those who are interested purely out of interest, whom I will try to gather and organize too.

I think there needs to be a substantial non-coding effort in this project, so something alike to a small forum where people (interested users, developers and others) also can exchange ideas and shape the product before coding it, and a bridge between the "talk" and the "code", which I don't concretely know yet how exactly it will look, but I've mentioned the bounty and organization, and I guess audit and revision would belong there as well.

We'd need to host multiple free projects and bring together developers with different interests.

If you think that could work on github or sourceforge, then, let me know. I think not. But once there is a release candidate, then yes..
 
Old 08-25-2019, 05:32 AM   #107
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188
So, here is my first blog post about SystemFree, trying to summarise some of the most important things so far in a single readable post.
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...acement-38056/
 
Old 08-25-2019, 05:43 AM   #108
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 3,289
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840
Here are the conditions that I think a proper systemd replacement would need to satisfy.

1) The init program proper should be as small and have as few dependencies as possible. This is not just a philosophical point; if init crashes, you can't boot, so it needs to be bomb-proof.
2) There needs to be a proper daemon manager. That's what systemd was originally intended to be; sysvinit and openRC fail here.
3) The system must be usable with any combination of higher level software that the user requires. Ideally such software should be init-agnostic. However some desktops have become dependent on systemd, so they would need some kind of shim to make them think they are running in a systemd environment and this would need to be part of the package. The solution used, for example, by AntiX involves alternative builds of some software and that is not practical on a larger scale.
4) One-shot programs for initialising parts of the user environment should not be closely integrated with the init program, as they are in systemd. They should be optional alternatives to traditional init scripts. People who prefer "the Unix way" should be able to mix and match. Poettering often claims that systemd is merely a toolkit like coreutils. So why not make that boast come true?

Last edited by hazel; 08-25-2019 at 05:44 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-25-2019, 05:53 AM   #109
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
You can't help noticing that this much was achieved by initNG, and development there seems to have slowed/stopped.
Thank you btw, and sorry that I forgot a bit about you and addressing one of your very important points..

Additional resources for this thread (now):
https://github.com/initng
https://www.systutorials.com/docs/linux/man/8-initng/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/initng/files/

In regards to me adding "resources" to this thread, it could be important references or similar or relevant projects and not least people who can later possibly be tracked down to partake in the effort at some point. I think about a dozen relevant projects have been mentioned so far, including some very strongly anti-systemd projects, and I think so far I've seen the names about 20-30 different people who have worked on relevant projects that could potentially be contacted at some point.

Last edited by zeebra; 08-25-2019 at 06:40 AM.
 
Old 08-25-2019, 05:58 AM   #110
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Here are the conditions that I think a proper systemd replacement would need to satisfy.

1) The init program proper should be as small and have as few dependencies as possible. This is not just a philosophical point; if init crashes, you can't boot, so it needs to be bomb-proof.
2) There needs to be a proper daemon manager. That's what systemd was originally intended to be; sysvinit and openRC fail here.
3) The system must be usable with any combination of higher level software that the user requires. Ideally such software should be init-agnostic. However some desktops have become dependent on systemd, so they would need some kind of shim to make them think they are running in a systemd environment and this would need to be part of the package. The solution used, for example, by AntiX involves alternative builds of some software and that is not practical on a larger scale.
4) One-shot programs for initialising parts of the user environment should not be closely integrated with the init program, as they are in systemd. They should be optional alternatives to traditional init scripts. People who prefer "the Unix way" should be able to mix and match. Poettering often claims that systemd is merely a toolkit like coreutils. So why not make that boast come true?
I absolutely agree with these things and I thank you.

It does raise some practical questions in regards to sysfd (pid 101) and the design of end-user programs, point 4) (&& 3).

Last edited by zeebra; 08-25-2019 at 06:03 AM.
 
Old 08-25-2019, 06:18 AM   #111
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188
If sysfd is start-stop-daemon and input/output (modul1) and supervisor daemon, it could be that it does not solve "the problem" (of systemd) and it raises the question of sysfpd (sysf plus daemon) to be a solution to that. To make it truly modular one would have to avoid that other software make sysfd a dependency unless specifically by design. Sysfd can exist under SysVinit, OpenRC etc, but it should not be a dependency still.

It is OK to make dependent systemd systems on all systemfree modules initially, but it would be nice to be able to scale back those dependencies if the user and distro so wishes.
With that in mind I think it is highly important to consider sysfdp and to consider a proper balance act between sysfd, sysecd, sysd and sysfpd. Can the dependency issue be solved in a such a way or does it require more dramatic design choices?
Regarding SystemFree in distro design, system software and end-user software and the modular aspect of SystemFree it is fundamentally important to really continue to chew on this issue to find the proper solution.

Sysfd is a case of either/or, either you include it or not, but this raises the question of sysf init and avoiding making it too big or too complex. If you do not include sysfd you end up with a similar scenario as you have with SysV, plus an init which is listening to sysfd (or an alternativ) and not really anything else. If sysf init is scalable from sysfinit --> pid 101 sysfd or script based SysV startup style, it would still end up larger than SysVinit.

On the other hand, sysfd is the core of systemfree and could take over the tasks of script bases startup style and thus really become the init+. In such a case systemfree would always be sysfinit and sysfd, which would make sysfd NOT a module.

The initial thought is that SysF init is somewhat similar to SysVinit, but in most cases will run sysfd as the core module and through it offer all the power of the init system, and thus be module1 (stage2 && 3??). I still think that makes sense.

Last edited by zeebra; 08-25-2019 at 06:47 AM.
 
Old 08-25-2019, 06:46 AM   #112
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188
initng is also gplv2 with clause "or any later version".
 
Old 08-25-2019, 02:58 PM   #113
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 12,307
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310Reputation: 3310
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeebra View Post
Because of the scope and complexity of one project that is one project and at the same time branches and contributes to other projects to be viable itself, I feel like it needs to be organized in a particular way. Sure, the release candidate will be released on open platforms, but the initial development I think will need to be managed tightly, especially if there is to be a monetary bounty system to draw developers in addition to those who are interested purely out of interest, whom I will try to gather and organize too.
Sounds disturbingly familiar...
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-25-2019, 04:09 PM   #114
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
Sounds disturbingly familiar...
Well, I think I've already mentioned at it's FULL scope (all modules) SystemFree is a "systemd done right", a systemd replacement and a "do install systemfree, then uninstall systemd" type of project.

Sure that might sound a bit scary, but at it's minimum SystemFree is more or less like SysV, possibly smaller. Every user and distro should be able to choose whatever fits them in between that range and to accommodate the environment they want to build. It's not about control, SystemFree is anti-systemd in the way it works, that's the whole point.
 
Old 08-25-2019, 05:46 PM   #115
rnturn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Illinois (Chicago area)
Distribution: CentOS, MacOS, [Open]SuSE, Raspian, Red Hat, Slackware, Solaris, Tru64
Posts: 1,482

Rep: Reputation: 154Reputation: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
There was init-ng, initNG, or something, although they seem to have retired to the boozer, and not recently either. It was really a fork of sysvinit.

I tried it once; it was good; you added "init=/sbin/initng" to your kernel command line and it booted faster.
A couple of questions:

How feasible is it to do this nowadays?

If one were to try and revert back to a more traditional (or even "initng") how long would it be before a typical user found many things breaking?

Are the few distributions that have not gone the systemd route severely handcuffed in their use as a desktop operating system?

I use Slackware -- a famously non-systemd distribution -- on a couple of servers but do not use any graphical interfaces on those systems. Is it a pipe dream to think I'd be able to stay reasonably up-to-date with desktop software if I went back to Slackware on my everyday desktop system? Or would someone have to live with trailing-edge software if systsmd had no presence on one's system?

Last edited by rnturn; 08-25-2019 at 05:50 PM. Reason: Some people bristle at the SystemD spelling.
 
Old 08-25-2019, 06:04 PM   #116
rnturn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Illinois (Chicago area)
Distribution: CentOS, MacOS, [Open]SuSE, Raspian, Red Hat, Slackware, Solaris, Tru64
Posts: 1,482

Rep: Reputation: 154Reputation: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
But you're happy to complain about it? Speaks volumes. There is no init system called "systemD", anymore than there's any init system called "SystemD". There is one called "systemd" though.
I'm certain I've seen it spelled as "SystemD" in the trade press. Arguing over it is about as meaningful coming to blows over whether it's "FORTRAN" or "Fortran". Let's move on.
 
Old 08-26-2019, 03:04 AM   #117
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnturn View Post
Are the few distributions that have not gone the systemd route severely handcuffed in their use as a desktop operating system?

I use Slackware -- a famously non-systemd distribution -- on a couple of servers but do not use any graphical interfaces on those systems. Is it a pipe dream to think I'd be able to stay reasonably up-to-date with desktop software if I went back to Slackware on my everyday desktop system? Or would someone have to live with trailing-edge software if systsmd had no presence on one's system?
This is a very good and reasonable question. Slackware is notoriously good at coming up with solutions to "problems". There has been talks about Plasma and Slackware for awhile now. Look at Gentoo, they had to come up with eudev and elogind to work around systemd, and I'm sure that's not the full extent of it either.

I think in the end, the longer this draws on, the worse it will get to implement a desktop system or end user software on a non-systemd system, due to the way systemd is designed and due to the way some design their software.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-26-2019, 07:13 AM   #118
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 152
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 103Reputation: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeebra View Post
SystemFree should work on such a principle, which means it is basically just an init system. But do it well, I think there can be some kind of interactive interface/aspect to the init system.
Herein lies the genius of systemd. It is nearly proprietary, because regardless of licensing one group more or less controls how it ties together. When the components were modular, it was up to the user to put them together. Now it is up to the systemd developers.

It's true that most people don't care about that-- most people really don't care if a large corporation like Red Hat or IBM dictate how their system works. But people who don't want to outsource to a company that dictates how these things are done have no options.

You want to make, using discrete components that already existed, a simulation of of a thing that lumps all those components together. Cue the people who will lie and say it is modular-- if it were modular, it wouldn't take groups of people years to cleanse the repos of it-- it is monolithic, and it is becoming more monolithic-- you have developers like GNOME who brag about projects using dbus. The same developers and fanboys brag about how you won't be able to do anything without it. That's a huge red flag-- but if you try to alert people to it, they turn right around and say it's modular and you don't know what you're talking about.

The truth is that it is a tactic outlined as a corporate strategy for doing harm to this ecosystem. That is what it's designed to do-- that is what the big players actually recommend for fighting against our software and making themselves the owners again.

So let's say you make a simulated systemd-- you start with a few components that are truly optional modules. Now the developers make new changes and you are incompatible again. This is a game, and you're playing by their rules. So you make the new changes, and basically they just keep you on a leash, maintaining a clone of something they dictate the design of.

Eventually you realise that your version doesn't really change anything-- it doesn't do a better job, because the point is compatibility-- and nothing is more compatible than the original, so you fold and go on to doing something else. Then more people use systemd, because while you were making a clone the other alternatives dropped even further down in usage.

A clone is not an alternative, it's the same thing. And what they're doing is basically creating a software ecosystem that never depended on systemd, and increasingly does.

Look at the projects to get away from it. What are they doing? Constantly fighting against a monopoly takeover. Remember when we used to develop For software? Now we develop Despite it.

It would be a paranoid rant, except we had all the proof 20 years ago-- not a secret plan that was just uncovered, but a deliberate strategy that you could read about 5, 10 years ago on Wikipedia as well as the FSF website and (until the board suggested to remove it) on the OSI website as well. And the author (who co-founded OSI with Bruce Perens) continues to host the plan.

All you have to do is understand that this is what they've always done, this is how they do this, and look around-- they're not doing less of it, they're doing way, way more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents

OSI website: http://web.archive.org/web/200212151...halloween1.php

Quote:
...to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.
They meant target the development process, which they've done by consolidating various key components, but just for fun they've taken over "process" ID 1. I mean that's poetic, I'm sure it wasn't planned.

Quote:
Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities.
Windows still supports the floppy drive. Without systemd, you can barely count on power management. (Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical called ACPI a "trojan horse" and it was designed to do for hardware what systemd happens to do for software.)

Also from the OSI website / original Microsoft memo:

Quote:
The key point is here is that if Microsoft wants to fight the open-source community on UI, let them -- because we can win that battle, too, fighting it our way. They can write ever-more-elaborate Windows monoliths that spot-weld you to your application-server console. We'll win if we write clean distributed applications that leverage the Internet and the Web and make the UI a pluggable/unpluggable user choice that can evolve.

Note, however, that our win depends on the existence of well-defined protocols (such as HTTP) to communicate between UIs and engines. That's why the stuff later in this memo about ``de-commoditizing protocols'' is so sinister. We need to guard against that. }
A monolithic kernel is one thing, a monolithic OS with gratuitous interdependency is another.

Why did it only take a few years (about 6) to write a UNIX replacement, and the guys rewriting Windows are still working on it?

For the same reason that rewriting systemd will never happen. Heck, the Puppy Linux developers are rewriting Woof (the Puppy build scripts) and even THAT is so monolithic (not even deliberately, just as years worth of taking shortcuts) that they will never get it done. What is BarryK doing? EasyOS. (A new project instead.)

The industry already has a word for this: Technical Debt.

For someone like me who writes small projects (never more than 2000 lines, generally fewer) it all sounds very preachy. For software that industries use, systemd has so much Technical Debt that it will never be forked (remember that to make it Open Source they had to spend a decade rewriting Mozilla?) and never be repaired.

It's not meant to be. Like Windows itself, they will just glom another mountain of garbage onto it later.

This is a design that works for big corporations who can maintain it. Everybody else? Watch them spinning their wheels. Five years in, Debian got Punked.

I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said by lots of people over and over again. The number of people saying it isn't decreasing, either. Eventually, people are going to speak of systemd the way they spoke of Windows ME-- with a shudder. And people will say "it can't be that bad!"

A lot of people didn't care what a garbagefest Windows ME was, either. Those who did, knew why it was. It was a cartoonish, cloying, corporate monstrosity and full of bugs.

Systemd replaces uptime with promises of faster boot times, and then falls short on that. But the real crime isn't what it adds, or even what it takes away, but the fact that it takes it from everybody and hands it over to people who gleefully announce that we have no choice.

Then the design of it dovetails perfectly with one very large company's plan to destroy FLOSS, and we sit here and debate about whether they still mean it, while they're continuing to move forward.

Just so you know, Red Hat got purchased months after I called it. Months. I knew it the moment that Microsoft purchased Github. Which was by no means unrelated.

This isn't a grand conspiracy, it's business-as-usual. They did it to Nokia, They did it to Java, They did it to Android, and they do more of it when you just sit back and let them do it.

Jim Zemlin, Torvalds' boss, says bashing Microsoft is "like kicking a puppy." Microsoft cries all the way to the bank. They would sell their own grandmothers if their grandmothers worked for the competition. You know who Microsoft's most powerful competitor is? Us. When you consider how they treat their enemies, and yes, enemies is the word-- they're the ones who have always called this a War. It's not always great to be on their radar. But the alternative is to be a digital serf.

Writing a replacement for systemd is a great idea, there are several replacements already-- hook one up and start looking for applications that do not increasingly depend on systemd.

What they're counting on is that it's probably easier to fork the applications than systemd itself. That's basically where we are at. You think people haven't tried forking systemd instead? It's designed to resist compatibility. It does a pretty good job, based on the mess it's left in its wake.

All in all, it's one of those things that is fixable-- by enough people doing something else instead. While it tries to insidiously push people away from all other choices, gloating and smirking all the way. Systemd will eventually leave us alone, but like the Github purchase, the damage is already done. There's plenty of evidence out there, but you can lead a horse to water.

Related: OOXML, Linux.com website (mostly Microsoft/WSL now-- run by Apple users), WSL, Microsoft's shoddy Java implementation, even RTF:

Quote:
every time Microsoft changed the RTF specification, Microsoft's own applications had a lead in time-to-market, because competitors had to redevelop their applications after studying the newer version of the format.
^ This is the "game" systemd is playing. Yes, it helps a bit that we have the source code. I mean we've had it all along, and having the source has completely mitigated the setbacks in compatibility, so this is a moot point </sarcasm>

Quote:
Novell alleged that Microsoft's practices were anticompetitive in its 2004 antitrust complaint against Microsoft.[61][62] The RTF specifications lack some of the semantic definitions necessary to read, write, and modify documents.
You can read about that from this competitor, Novell... http://www.novell.com/news/press/arc.../complaint.pdf

Oh, no you can't. Two guesses as to why. Here's an old copy:

http://web.archive.org/web/200412282.../complaint.pdf

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-...8.html#7582468

You have to understand that this just keeps happening.

"every time Microsoft changed the RTF specification, Microsoft's own applications had a lead in time-to-market, because competitors had to redevelop their applications after studying the newer version"

People talk like this can't happen if the source is available. The source helps, though what OSI has always said is:

"Open Source is a Methodology."

Turns out, lock-in is a methodology too. You can, they have, system does-- apply that to software that has the source included under a free license.

Proprietary software under a free license was all they really needed. Too bad the FSF is too red-faced to say the obvious, and thanks to systemd taking out Upstart (not that Upstart had much hope regardless, but the script I wrote to repair Trisquel won't do much without it) and Trisquel choosing Ubuntu, you now have more freedom under Debian than you do under Trisquel. Once you figure systemd is a weapon, not even the first of its kind, but one of several historical examples-- you can appreciate what a marvelous job they did.

Last edited by freemedia2018; 08-26-2019 at 07:20 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-26-2019, 07:32 AM   #119
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: Currently OpenMandriva. Previously openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,002

Rep: Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnturn View Post
I'm certain I've seen it spelled as "SystemD" in the trade press. Arguing over it is about as meaningful coming to blows over whether it's "FORTRAN" or "Fortran". Let's move on.
I don't care what you've seen in "trade press". Who's "coming to blows" ? That's pretty difficult without physical contact. In any case, it IS important because it speaks to the intent, and validity of the comments by the OP, and their intent in general - even if that isn't important to yourself.

Code:
[root@jamespc] ~> systemctL
bash: systemctL: command not found...
Similar command is: 'systemctl'
Wonder what happened there ?
(rhetorical question)
 
Old 08-26-2019, 10:00 AM   #120
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 781

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 188Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemedia2018 View Post
Proprietary software under a free license was all they really needed. Too bad the FSF is too red-faced to say the obvious, and thanks to systemd taking out Upstart (not that Upstart had much hope regardless, but the script I wrote to repair Trisquel won't do much without it) and Trisquel choosing Ubuntu, you now have more freedom under Debian than you do under Trisquel. Once you figure systemd is a weapon, not even the first of its kind, but one of several historical examples-- you can appreciate what a marvelous job they did.
What a post! I can't even begin to address all the points or even know which ones I really want to respond to, so I might respond to something else later on. Regarding the marvelous job that they did, I think exactly this is very interesting and to tie it into the story of the assassination of Nokia. Sure, the war is very real. Nokia was a threat, it was taken out and now most people use a monkey-toy press-button mobile.

Had Nokia not been assassinated it would have been a matter of a couple of years before they had a new range of awesome products, from low end symbian and linux (busybox?) simplephones to the massively powerful mobile computers with GNU/Linux as well. They would have been released in all kind of formats, and the high range would have made Iphone and Android Phones look retarded.

This was an intelligence, state and corporate cooperation project to take over the mobile market, and this could not be done by making better products, it could only be done by assassinating the competition (Nokia). The first few Iphone were absolutely trash and could barely do anything useful or even primitive mobile functions that 10 year old nokia phones could. That's not the reason that Apple and Android took over the market. It was a cooperation between the companies, intelligence agencies, trade agencies and the media in the US. They killed Nokia. Apple got tens of billions in free marketing while Nokia got smeared and trojan horsed, and eventually and ironically sold of to Microsoft.

Nokia was a giant, and they would have remained so still if not for this coordinated multi-stage assassination. Not apple, nor google nor microsoft would have gotten a good foothold into the market if the market had been a free market, but it wasn't free. Nokia could not be controlled by US intelligence.

Anyways, I'm just saying you are right about the war, and it was interesting to read your thoughts regarding systemd. I'll have to chew on it and re-read it to give some further answers to your post. But this will do for now.
 
  


Reply


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 On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
init.d script to systemd with systemd-sysv-generator tankzeu Linux - Newbie 1 09-17-2018 04:41 AM
LXer: The Story Behind ‘init’ and ‘systemd’: Why ‘init’ Needed to be Replaced with ‘systemd’ in Linu LXer Syndicated Linux News 1 04-07-2017 11:33 PM
[SOLVED] Valgrind takes into consideration of freed memory? MichelleL Linux - General 1 11-01-2012 10:27 PM
Taking brands into consideration when buying a graphics card Michael_aust Linux - Hardware 1 12-28-2005 08:21 AM
The fastest reaction in auto-updates taking into consideration network security bugs? immer Linux - Distributions 1 10-23-2004 03:21 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration