Quote:
..sorry but humor is good at times like this :D I didnt earn the adjective PITA for no reason now did I? |
The initramfs needed would be fairly large. One would have to be created, rebuilt when updates occurred to any specific individual file used, and loading something that large would take considerable time.
Doing that creates another complexity and more for a system administrator. The point is to do less work with better tools, not more work. Adding complexity means more work, more problems to squash if they bug up, and more to maintain in the end when updates occur. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
irregular in all languages. You can dismiss some incoherence in the first steps but not once a dialect has became a consolidated language. It would be nor coherent neither useful to create today a new verb and not use the termination "ed" in the past form. In the beginnings of anything it not exists a context to be coherent with :-). Ask yourself why the syntax of commands like find are different from the rest. If someone here consider this comment off-topic then "coherently" will consider off-topic the link that Patrick Volkerding included in the thread "systemd and Slackware's" future: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4727533 The link is this: http://theody.net/elements.html Those that trolled me in this thread (included some moderator) should read it carefully. The whole idea behind all my posts in this thread points in one direction. My conviction that the only possible prophylaxis respect issues like systemd is trying to show, educate, teach new users in what the article linked by Patrick says. If you understand the above you'll see that my aim politely explaining (between other examples*) the reason behind using hard wrapped lines in text edition is a better move in that direction than "spoon feeding" new (and not so new) users with WYSIWYG interfaces (even if the use of hard wrapped lines in this forum could be questionable in some cases, but it's not the point). The effort that Ser Olmy is putting explaining his point of view about file systems goes in the same direction. (*) Other examples behind systemd issue: Will I be forced to stop using the Bourne [Again] Shell? Will I be forced to stop editing text files to manage my system? Will I be forced to stop using shell script init files? Will I be forced to use a parallel, dubiously stable, boot sequence? Will I lose the flexibility that Unix historical distinctive "all is a file" feature gives me at time to use my file system? May I start to consider obsolete the way I use my system? And a long etcetera. There is a good reason to do that? Is that reason coherent with what has been done till now? |
Quote:
(For reference, here are a couple of distros that do it already): [1] Arch Linux: https://projects.archlinux.org/mkini...tree/hooks/usr [2] Dracut [fedora, RH, possibly openSUSE in the future]: http://git.kernel.org/?p=boot/dracut...fa5162;hb=HEAD The 'decrease in speed' isn't anything quantifiable, and the technical strengths and simplification of the hierarchy seem to outweigh them. Personally, I dislike having about 6 or 8 different locations that executable binaries can live. |
@
e l o i : i n s i s t i n g o n h a r d w o r d s - w r a p p i n g o n l y s h o w s h o w m u c h y o u c a r e f o r o t h e r s ' r e a d i n g c o m f o r t . |
Quote:
Quote:
2) Initramfs results in duplicate versions of core system utilities 3) The utilities of the initramfs tree are built differently than the "runtime" versions (typically being statically linked, or linked to different libraries) 4) Initramfs increases the RAM needed by the system (while Linux can run on 16Mb, initramfs typically demands 64Mb for booting) 5) Initramfs duplicating /sbin utilities takes away space on the install media 6) Initramfs entails a (rather large) init script to be executed before handing over control to the system init. While none of these are insurmountable, and in many situations are not particularly problematic, they are issues to be contended with (and some of us would rather not be forced into doing so). |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Your complaints are eating a cake and complaining about the fudge you smear on your face when you take away the false statements you just claimed. There are ofcorse costs to change. If I am a PITA then you must be Mr. CommonSense - the Sense. So you prefer a Rotten Apple because you dont want fudge on your face from eating cake? |
Quote:
Common sense tells me to let things go and ignore 100 threads calling me out afterwards and focus more on learning Scheme. Bye. |
I would like to ask abrouwers and elvis4526 exactly what is required to try systemd in Slackware?
The link that abrouwers posted earlier in this thread is dead for me and I think elvis4526 was involved in this. http://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-.../msg06172.html Following this thread has left me with the feeling that systemd is something that I would like to trial for my personal interest and investigation. This is FOSS after all. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's my github repo: https://github.com/elvis4526/slackware-systemd Oh, and forget the part when it speak about binary packages, I tought I could build prebuilt packages but everyone on #slackware told me that nobody would trust my packages, so forget about it. So, for everyone that want to test systemd for the latest slackware stable release, if you encounter any problems with my procedure and my slackbuilds, or if you have any suggestions about how making things work better, tell me as soon as possible. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 PM. |