When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?
Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I figured I'd
ask just to get an idea.
When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including
free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?
For instance I'm posting this from a laptop running Fedora. Fedora and it's spins tend to focus on a platform consisting of strictly free software when it
is installed. Of course you can still install some propietary stuff through repos such as rpmforge and (I THINK) Epel.
Other distros such as the Ubuntu family among others take the convenience route and find a way to include all the stuff you need including non-free packagess.
Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or
for more practical reasons.
In my case I work with RHEL systems, so my home computers (desktop and laptop)
are Centos and fedora based. Otherwise I'd probably just be running Ubuntu, Mageia, or Mint.
Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy war ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------
CDP
The Diamond Mine BBS - telnet://bbs.dmine.net
The Retro Room - http://forums.delphiforums.com/retroroom ------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Synchronet Diamond Mine Online - bbs.dmine.net - Fredericksburg, VA USA
Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I figured I'd ask just to get an idea.
When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?
For instance I'm posting this from a laptop running Fedora. Fedora and it's spins tend to focus on a platform consisting of strictly free software when it is installed. Of course you can still install some propietary stuff through repos such as rpmforge and (I THINK) Epel.
Other distros such as the Ubuntu family among others take the convenience route and find a way to include all the stuff you need including non-free packagess.
Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.
In my case I work with RHEL systems, so my home computers (desktop and laptop) are Centos and fedora based. Otherwise I'd probably just be running Ubuntu, Mageia, or Mint.
Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy war ;-)
Chris wrote to All <=-
@VIA: VERT/DMINE
@TZ: 412c
Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I
figured I'd ask just to get an idea.
When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards
just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you
need?
When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including
free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?or
Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal
for more practical reasons.
When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?
I don't want things to break. I think some
packages are outdated in Trisquel, but hey, I don't mind I am fine with it.
When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you
aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you
go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the
stuff you need?
For instance I'm posting this from a laptop running Fedora. Fedora and it's spins tend to focus on a platform consisting of strictly free software when it is installed. Of course you can still install some propietary stuff through repos such as rpmforge and (I THINK) Epel.
Other distros such as the Ubuntu family among others take the
convenience route and find a way to include all the stuff you need including non-free packagess.
Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.
I honestly never even tried Fedora. I was warned early on (15ish years ago) about the RPM package management system and never really bothered. I'm sure it's light years better now, but just haven't had the need to try
I honestly never even tried Fedora. I was warned early on (15ish
years ago) about the RPM package management system and never
really bothered. I'm sure it's light years better now, but just
haven't had the need to try
RPM packet management is a joke.
APT is far superior. But, i guess its all what you like. I'm an ubuntu fan.
Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
By: Deavmi to Chris on Wed Nov 30 2016 01:46 pm
I don't want things to break. I think some
packages are outdated in Trisquel, but hey, I don't mind I am fine with it.
Hey, I'm still running 14.04 LTS on my systems - works just fine. :)
---
Synchronet realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
Now my preference is Arch. I've used all the major types (Redhat, Debian) plus arch. I have not yet done gentoo, or Linux from scratch, but I like Arch the best.
My ideal distro. Well first of all it must have apt-get. Therefore a
Debian based one is the starting point (you could use apt-get on fedora,
I am 'trying' to be more practical. I work with RHEL, so I try to stick wit CentOS so things I learn in one area can be transferred to another with litt translations.
For years, I used to actually use linux as my main system/desktop, and relie on wine or CrossOver to use programs I could not find suitable linux replacements for.
vi(m) or emacs? I have 'never' used emacs. I use vim on everything. that s is like whipped cream. -- edlin user
I experiment with many, even testing Gentoo from time to time, but because o ease of management and availability, my systems run Ubuntu. Usually the lat LTS release (once I can get them all upgraded.... I've got a webserver that isn't playing nice with 16.04).
I honestly never even tried Fedora. I was warned early on (15ish years ago) about the RPM package management system and never really bothered. I'm sure it's light years better now, but just haven't had the need to try it out.
Chris wrote to Jazzy_J <=-
I love the fact the Ubuntu has an LTS and wish more distros did that. Being a Fedora user, the one thing I've come to terms with is the fact that they will never do an LTS simply because of the nature of the
distro. It's designed for constant releases (every 6 months or so). I
like it, but I wouldn't recommend it for newcomers. Not because it's unstable (it isn't) but because after a few months they're going to be
The rpm stuff is old news. It used to be that in the early days of rpm management, there were a lot of dependency issues. The .deb packages
had less issues and a lot of people swore by them at the time because
of the dependency hell (which I feel like probably got overstated at times).
Today rpm's are fine. I use rpm/yum management all the time and rarely have issues with it. Admittedly I only have limited experience using deb/apt distros, but in this day and age I don't see either having a substantial advantage over the other except in the biases of the users
who swear by them.
To summarize, when evaluating distros, package manager really
shouldn't have to be a consideration anymore, unless there is a
specific need for it. For instance, one of the reasons I went with Centos/Fedora was to familiarize myself with the rpm/yum/dnf commands. It's a practical need, but otherwise not a preference on my part.
You running Ubuntu? Trisquel uses different repositories, doesn't use Ubuntu's at all.
Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
By: Deavmi to Poindexter Fortran on Thu Dec 01 2016 09:06 pm
You running Ubuntu? Trisquel uses different repositories, doesn't use Ubuntu's at all.
I'm running Ubuntu, my point was that you don't need to necessarily be on the latest and greatest of anything as long as your distro is keeping up with security patches.
---
Synchronet realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
Deavmi wrote to Poindexter Fortran <=-the
@VIA: VERT/EWBBS
@MSGID: <584283E6.1770.dove-nix@ewbbs.synchro.net>
@REPLY: <5841AC1E.1732.dove.dove-nix@realitycheckbbs.org>
@TZ: 0078
On 2016-12-02 07:15 PM, Poindexter Fortran wrote:
Re: Re: Your Ideal Distro
By: Deavmi to Poindexter Fortran on Thu Dec 01 2016 09:06 pm
You running Ubuntu? Trisquel uses different repositories, doesn't use Ubuntu's at all.
I'm running Ubuntu, my point was that you don't need to necessarily be on
latest and greatest of anything as long as your distro is keeping up with security patches.
---
n.' Synchronet n.' realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
Good point. I agree.
Yup, if you pick an LTS version you get backported security updates
and other goodies for quite a long time, so no need to run the latest
and "greatest" (I only run 16.04 on boxes that I want a ZFS tank, my
other boxes are staying on 14.04 LTS for as long as possible to avoid
the clusterfuck that is systemd)..
The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my primary
GUI and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools,
documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from my
cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and frankly at
the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there, slowly.
PS: I wrote this whole message in Emacs on my OS X box, check out the screenshot at http://sampsa.com/osxemacs.png
I'm running Ubuntu, my point was that you don't need to necessarily be on latest and greatest of anything as long as your distro is keeping up with security patches.
Accession wrote to Sampsa <=-
@VIA: VERT/PHARCYDE
@MSGID: <5842FFF5.53.dove-nix@pharcyde.org>
@TZ: 4168
Hello Sampsa,
On 03 Dec 16 16:17, Sampsa wrote to Deavmi:
Yup, if you pick an LTS version you get backported security updates
and other goodies for quite a long time, so no need to run the latest
and "greatest" (I only run 16.04 on boxes that I want a ZFS tank, my
other boxes are staying on 14.04 LTS for as long as possible to avoid
the clusterfuck that is systemd)..
Can you explain to me why you think systemd is a clusterfuck? I've been using it since Archlinux switched over to it, and haven't had any
problems with it whatsoever. It was a learning process coming from sysvinit, but now that I kinda know what I'm doing with it, almost
seems easier now.
The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my primary
GUI and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools,
documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from my
cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and frankly at
the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there, slowly.
We differ a lot there, too. I can't stand OSX and the fact that they dumbed it down more than M$ did with Windows. At least you can get more control when you open an XTerm though, I suppose.
Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch..
I'll take vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)
Hello Sampsa,
On 03 Dec 16 16:17, Sampsa wrote to Deavmi:
Yup, if you pick an LTS version you get backported security updates
and other goodies for quite a long time, so no need to run the latest and "greatest" (I only run 16.04 on boxes that I want a ZFS tank, my other boxes are staying on 14.04 LTS for as long as possible to avoid the clusterfuck that is systemd)..
Can you explain to me why you think systemd is a clusterfuck? I've been using it since Archlinux switched over to it, and haven't had any problems with it whatsoever. It was a learning process coming from sysvinit, but now that I kinda know what I'm doing with it, almost seems easier now.
The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my primary
GUI and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools,
documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from my
cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and frankly at the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there, slowly.
We differ a lot there, too. I can't stand OSX and the fact that they dumbed it
down more than M$ did with Windows. At least you can get more control when you
open an XTerm though, I suppose.
PS: I wrote this whole message in Emacs on my OS X box, check out the screenshot at http://sampsa.com/osxemacs.png
Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch.. I'll take
vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)
Regards,
Nick
... " . ."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
* Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
Synchronet thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
Deavmi wrote to Accession <=-
vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)
Deavmi wrote to Accession <=-
Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.
Can you explain to me why you think systemd is a clusterfuck?
I've been using it since Archlinux switched over to it, and
haven't had any problems with it whatsoever. It was a learning
process coming from sysvinit, but now that I kinda know what I'm
doing with it, almost seems easier now.
It's a solution in search of a problem, an overengineered pile of crap that was totally unnecessary and pointless.
Also, this:
Yeah it's here to stay and as soon as I can I'll be slowly migrating
my stuff off of Linux as soon as is feasible.
Also have you ever tried to modify what a runlevel, sorry "target"
does?
Edit a service file?
It's an enormous pain in the ass. Also, what POSSIBLE benefit comes
from the "predictable naming of devices" (i.e. wtf was wrong with
eth0?) which is actually entirely non-deterministic - on Debian/s390x systemd decides to rename my BLOCK DEVICES on random occasions (which
is nuts - on IBM mainframes the block devices are NUMBERED, so it's
pretty easy to go from 120, 121, 122 etc to /dev/dasda, /dev/dasdb
etc. But nope now it's totally f'ing random).
I'm not alone in this, the old-skool Linux greybeards like Slackware
have decided to say f**k off to Poettering's Empire of Shite.
The UIs are getting better but again, I'm used to OS X as my
primary GUI and have a lot of good editors, source contro tools,
documentation creation tools (you'll grabe OmniGraffle Pro from
my cold dead hands) etc and I don't feel like changing - and
frankly at the moment none of the Linux desktop environments are
as smooth and consistent as OS X, but they're getting there,
slowly.
I thought Linux fans were all about choice (except in init systems,
that needs to be crammed down everyones throats by making desktop environments be dependent on what init system you're using lol).
I actually feel kinda sad - I was a huge fan and evangelizer of Linux since the early 90s but the way the community is going and the people
in it now frankly put me off - esp. this whole pointless hatred of
Apple (who provide a shitload stuff back to the F/OSS community, e.g. WebKit and LLVM) and MSFT.
Also nano over emacs? O..K.. - vim I get but NANO? For actual editing
of anything more than a quick config file change? Christ. TBH, I do
use it especially on slower systems (like the aforementioned
Debian/s390x system, it runs on an emulator with roughly the
processing power of a P133 but with 4 cores and 4 GB of RAM) but even
then I prefer "joe" - far more functionality.
The reason I put up the screenshot was to show that not all OS X users
are sitting around in Adobe Illustrator or something - this is still a good system for people who like a nice, stable UNIX with a good UI.
Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor?
Blecch.. I'll take vim or nano with black background and white text
any day. :)
Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.
Accession wrote to Sampsa <=-
It's an enormous pain in the ass. Also, what POSSIBLE benefit comes
from the "predictable naming of devices" (i.e. wtf was wrong with
eth0?) which is actually entirely non-deterministic - on Debian/s390x systemd decides to rename my BLOCK DEVICES on random occasions (which
is nuts - on IBM mainframes the block devices are NUMBERED, so it's
pretty easy to go from 120, 121, 122 etc to /dev/dasda, /dev/dasdb
etc. But nope now it's totally f'ing random).
I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi 3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86 machine it was
renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from that. So I'm unsure as
to where the "totally f'ing random" is coming from.
I'm not alone in this, the old-skool Linux greybeards like Slackware
have decided to say f**k off to Poettering's Empire of Shite.
I enjoy moving forward with the times, and I definitely wouldn't keep a grey beard (or neckbeard, for that matter).
This is a better explanation of your own opinion than the web paste you did above (I didn't bother quoting someone else's words). So you're
stuck in your old ways, which is completely understandable.
since the early 90s but the way the community is going and the people
in it now frankly put me off - esp. this whole pointless hatred of
Apple (who provide a shitload stuff back to the F/OSS community, e.g. WebKit and LLVM) and MSFT.
I don't hate Apple. I just think it's overpriced, so I choose not to
buy it. I can accomplish the exact same tasks on cheaper non-Apple machine, so I choose to go that route.
I'm a total fan of the unix, but not so much the UI. I would much
rather run FreeBSD without OSX. However, I'm not really completely sold
on any *nix desktop environments these days. I recently installed MATE
on my other RasPi3 that hosts my media server, only because it's one of the most lightweight, non-ugly, yet fairly full featured UIs I could
find that ran fast and snappy on the Pi (Gnome ran about as fast as a turtle, boy they really bloated that up in the last few years). Other
than that, I do most of my Linux'ing in CLI environments.
Deavmi wrote to Accession <=-
> vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)
Yeah I do use nano for quick and dirty edits but for actual real editing
work I use something like Smultron 6 with a beige background and black
text.
Also HUGE fonts - I hate squinting, especially when reading / writing Arabic..
Sampsa
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
Synchronet B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)
I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi
3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86
machine it was renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from
that. So I'm unsure as to where the "totally f'ing random" is
coming from.
So I have four DASD devices, 0120, 0121, 0130 and 0131.
Every couple of boots, the /dev/dasd name given to 0121 and 0130 is swapped around. So that's totally fucking random behaviour to me.
Yeah, I mean modularity, small tools that do things well, all that
boring UNIX philosophy should just be shitcanned because change, man!
I'm stuck in my own ways is a fairly condescending way of putting it:
I've found an optimal toolset for the work I do and keep using it is
how I'd put it.
Your tasks are clearly different from mine which is fine. For me, OS X
is the optimal OS though I am getting less and less pleased with the hardware they're putting out (but then again unlike Windows OS X
doesn't come with any significant more bloat each release so my 2011 MacBookPro 17" runs just fine [with a 2TB SSD system disk and 16 GB of RAM, which I shock horror managed to install ALL BY MYSELF!].
What do you actually do - software development, systems administration
or just a hobbyist?
Accession wrote to Ayex <=-
Compared to what, DEB?
Can you explain some details? What does it do differently than DEB packaging? I mean, I can't see how it could possibly be THAT bad especially when there are others out there to compare to (in the devs perspective, that is).
Can you explain some details? What does it do differently than
DEB packaging? I mean, I can't see how it could possibly be THAT
bad especially when there are others out there to compare to (in
the devs perspective, that is).
Way back in the day I remember getting in rpm hell frequently and
having to rebuild from a blank hard drive.
Of late, I used CEntOS and have developed a fondness of yum. However,
my lack of knowledge led me to destroy a server during a yum upgrade
where the paths of the certs for libvirtd were changed. I had the
I find Ubuntu's LTS versions to be a nice compromise of stability and features. Stability isn't just about crashes. It's about how often
you need to upgrade to a new major version. I have about 20 systems
that I have providing services and If I have to rebuild or perform a serious upgrade every six months, I'd shoot myself.
At work, when *nix is required, they are strictly CEntOS. There are probably 200 *nix servers. At my day job I support ~20K M$
workstations and have limited involvment in server management. I have
a few M$ and *nix servers helping me support the workstations, but the infrastructure consists of about 2K M$ server systems.
This is the kind of stuff I remember hearing about. At least back 15 or so years ago. Although I have heard this is rarely the case nowadays.
So I take it CentOS is sort of like Debian in the sense of only major security updates occurring until they package together a whole new distribution version?
If that's the case and you go to upgrade, does yum let you know and possibly give you an option to do a full upgrade to that next version?
So I take it CentOS is sort of like Debian in the sense of only
major security updates occurring until they package together a
whole new distribution version?
CentOS is a community-supported/free version of RHEL, built from all
the SRPMS that Red Hat publishes. It's more or less identical to RHEL,
but without the Red Hat branding and support from Red Hat.
Each major version is supported for a specific amount of time, with development/updates winding down through each phase. At first there's still development and improvement with new features, then eventually
only security fixes/bugfixes, and finally only high priority security fixes. However, these tend to happen somewhat concurrently with new development versions being released. RHEL 5, RHEL 6, and RHEL 7 are
all still supported by Red Hat, but with the oldest getting just
security fixes and the newest still receiving improvements. CentOS
mostly mirrors this.
If that's the case and you go to upgrade, does yum let you know and
possibly give you an option to do a full upgrade to that next
version?
You don't usually upgrade major versions of CentOS or RHEL with yum.
You boot off an install DVD and perform an upgrade that way, as
upgrading using yum can lead to all kinds of problems. This is pretty standard for rpm based distributions, as far as I know, with Fedora
having special tools to upgrade from one major version to another.
It's not nearly as easy as it is to perform full system upgrades on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch/etc.
Deavmi wrote to Sampsa <=-
I use nano only. I also use big text. I just do the Ctrl and Shift and
+ and the Ctrl and - whnever I need it.
Accession wrote to Sampsa <=-
So I have four DASD devices, 0120, 0121, 0130 and 0131.
Every couple of boots, the /dev/dasd name given to 0121 and 0130 is swapped around. So that's totally fucking random behaviour to me.
I've never seen this activity before. Then again, I don't have DASD devices, either. Maybe it's specific to your devices and/or your configuration?
I would say a bit of all three probably, with emphasis on the hobbyist part. I'll try and/or use the best fit for the task at hand. I'm a bit
of a PC gamer as well, so I also have a Win10 machine for Call of Duty, Battlefield 1, The Division, and soon the new Mass Effect that's coming out in spring of 2017.
If companies like Activision, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Bioware, and whatever else would contribute their games to the Linux world, I
wouldn't have a need for Windows whatsoever. But they don't, so I keep
it around for what I need it for. *shrug*
If that's the case and you go to upgrade, does yum let you know and
possibly give you an option to do a full upgrade to that next
version?
You don't usually upgrade major versions of CentOS or RHEL with yum.
You boot off an install DVD and perform an upgrade that way, as
upgrading using yum can lead to all kinds of problems. This is
pretty standard for rpm based distributions, as far as I know, with
Fedora having special tools to upgrade from one major version to
another. It's not nearly as easy as it is to perform full system
upgrades on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch/etc.
Ah, okay. Seems like kind of a bummer if you were to admin multiple CentOS servers that required a major update. Would the DVD install actually detect the current CentOS system and just upgrade it? Or is it a completely new install?
Sampsa wrote to Deavmi <=-
Deavmi wrote to Sampsa <=-
I use nano only. I also use big text. I just do the Ctrl and Shift and
+ and the Ctrl and - whnever I need it.
My options are basically:
- Quick edit to a small config file on a server? nano
- Some edits to code on a server? emacs
- Edit 10,000 lines of code in 50 files? sshfs + Smultron 6 on my OS X box.
sampsa
You don't usually upgrade major versions of CentOS or RHEL with yum. You boot off an install DVD and perform an upgrade that way, as upgrading using yum can lead to all kinds of problems. This is pretty standard for rpm based distributions, as far as I know, with Fedora having special tools to upgrade from one major version to another.
It's not nearly as easy as it is to perform full system upgrades on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch/etc.
Ah, okay. Seems like kind of a bummer if you were to admin multiple CentOS servers that required a major update. Would the DVD install actually detect the
current CentOS system and just upgrade it? Or is it a completely new install?
Tony wrote to Deavmi <=-
Nano is very useful...but if I have to change some configuraton on the
fly sed and awk are your best friends.
For automation and push all on remote servers combination of git/puppet/ansible and ansible playbook for
comamnd execution in remote are the best to remote server administration...
About distro? My favorite is Debian for server or CentOS if the
business require RHE but always try to suggest Debian.
Home users I don't really many years ago I used FreeBSD than Ubuntu but several years I am very comfortable with Mac.
When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards
just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?
Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.
Compared to what, DEB?
Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch.. I'e
vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)
Regards,
Nick
Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.
---
Synchronet Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
I wanted an honest opinion, not something quoted from a biased website.
I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi 3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86 machine it was
renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from that. So I'm unsure as to where the "totally f'ing random" is coming from.
Compared to what, DEB?
I think when rpm was first introduced, it lacked any sort of
dependency management. apt came before yum.
So, perhaps it may be accurate to say dpkg is better than rpm, but I
think both suck on their own, which is why we have apt and yum.
Nano is very useful...but if I have to change some configuraton on the fly sed and awk are your best friends.
And sometimes grep and friends.
I wanted an honest opinion, not something quoted from a biased
website.
While it is a quote, it's factual.
Systemd is great for desktops. Not surprising, as it's modeled after launchd from Mac OS.
However, it over-complicates most anything on the server side, which
is where the vast majority of Linux installs are.
Case in point: Journald. Did you know, there's no way to turn this
off? Most say,"Who cares! Turn the journal down to 512MB (The
minimum) and just send logs wherever you want!"
True, I could do that. However, when you're deploying 6-8000 machines across many DC's, 512MB per instance adds up. And, it costs money.
Can I disable it? Nope.
Systemd handles network interface management. What if you don't want anything managing your network, other than an enforced config? Can I disabled this? Nope. Core component.
Now, getting into DE's: Can you install Gnome3 without systemd?
Nope. Hard requirement. Now, it's said that one can write their own implementations of logind, but what is even the point of logind? Who cares since most machines are either: A) Headless (A server, which has
no seats) B) Single-user machines?
Case in point: Journald. Did you know, there's no way to turn this off? Most say,"Who cares! Turn the journal down to 512MB (The minimum) and just send logs wherever you want!"
Systemd handles network interface management. What if you don't want anything managing your network, other than an enforced config? Can I disabled this? Nope. Core component.
Systemd handles seat management. Who cares about seat management? My headless machines have no seats. Can I disabled this? Nope. It uses about 100MB of RAM too. Again, wasted money.
Now, getting into DE's: Can you install Gnome3 without systemd? Nope.
Hard requirement. Now, it's said that one can write their own implementations of logind, but what is even the point of logind? Who cares since most machines are either:
A) Headless (A server, which has no seats)
B) Single-user machines?
Again, wasted resources, and needless interlocking of dependencies.
I don't know if it's ARM specific, but both of my Raspberry Pi 3's use eth0 with systemd. Granted, when I was using an x86 machine it was renamed to enp2s6, but it /never/ changed from that. So I'm unsure as to where the "totally f'ing random" is coming from.
That's a distro thing with the Pi. Most pi distros lock the interface names.
As for random device naming, yes, systemd is prone to randomly renaming block devices, because it presumes everyone relies on UUIDs for block devices.
For network devices, yep: That device name will not change, until you move it. Then it will.
Deavmi wrote to Sampsa <=-
I use nano only. I also use big text. I just do the Ctrl and Shift and
+ and the Ctrl and - whnever I need it.
My options are basically:
- Quick edit to a small config file on a server? nano
- Some edits to code on a server? emacs
- Edit 10,000 lines of code in 50 files? sshfs + Smultron 6 on my OS X box.
sampsa
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Darwin v0.49
Synchronet B4BBS = London, England - b4bbs.sampsa.com (port 23/tcp)
When you are 'shopping' for a linux distro to run - assuming you aren't just constantly jumping distros - do you pick one that leans towards just including free software as one of it's goals, or do you go for the convenience of a distro that bundles most if not all the stuff you need?
Do you tend to favor type over the other? And if so, is it out of principal or for more practical reasons.
I try to find a balancing act. I would prefer to use all-libre software, but alas, my GPU will almost never be supported initially with a libre driver. Same with my wifi card.
So, I'd prefer a piece of libre software, but in the end, I need to get work done. Which is why I stick with Ubuntu server, and go from there.
Corey, KC2UGV
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
* Origin: Solar Pi BBS
Compared to what, DEB?
I think when rpm was first introduced, it lacked any sort of dependency management. apt came before yum.
So, perhaps it may be accurate to say dpkg is better than rpm, but I think both suck on their own, which is why we have apt and yum.
Corey, KC2UGV
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
* Origin: Solar Pi BBS
Are you trying to emulate an oldschool green screen monitor? Blecch.. I'e
vim or nano with black background and white text any day. :)
Regards,
Nick
Nano with white text (or like the gray text) and a black background.
---
Synchronet Electronic Warfare BBS | telnet://bbs.ewbbs.net
lol, noobs. Solarized light, ftw :P
(I kid, I kid! Everyone has their own preferences)
Corey, KC2UGV
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A31 (Raspberry Pi)
* Origin: Solar Pi BBS
I'm guessing on a much larger scale? I have run quite a few servers here from home as well as outside of home, and systemd has done everything I need it to so far.
Did you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And rather than writing
a script or
using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you can do
much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an option for that. :)
What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could you disable it without losing your network connectivity?
You may be diving a little deeper with the above. Gnome3 and most other DE's aren't usually used on servers. If they are, there's many more
other things that should be worried about than logind or systemd. :)
distibutions went the systemd route. That and the fact that now they (distro specific devs) can all work together in unison to accomplish the same tasks, rather than have to change everything that comes from
upstream for specific distributions.
Heck it looks like even RedHat/CentOS are using it now since version 7 (which is surprising).
Did you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging
facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And
rather than writing a script or
No, why would I turn syslog off? It's a robust logging facility, that
is time tested, and not prone to corruption of logs, unlike journald.
I would like to be able to disable journald, so I'm not wasting
resources on it, since syslog facilities are what get used in mass deployments.
using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you
can do much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for
something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an
option for that. :)
There's nothing wrong with grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog.
They are all capable of parallel processing the log.
Regardless, don't use that for much other than quick reports, on the
spot. On large scale deployments, syslog ships the logs to a ACID-compliant db backend. Why waste resources on journald, whose db
is not ACID compliant?
What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could
you disable it without losing your network connectivity?
You don't manage a networking interface. It gets brought up at boot,
and doesn't change.
We're not talking about laptops here. We're talking about servers,
which generally stay on, all the time.
If by some change the connection drops, it has a static assignment,
and just starts taking traffic again. No need for "interface
management" on servers.
How does systemd make it any easier for devs? Syslog, ssh, inits are
all application agnostic.
There's nothing to change upstream, anymore than there was prior to systemd.
As for RHEL/Centos deploying systemd, of course they are: RH is the
group that wrote it, and is pushing it. They are looking to mold
Linux into what makes money for them, not to be the best OS.
I think when rpm was first introduced, it lacked any sort of dependency management. apt came before yum.
So, perhaps it may be accurate to say dpkg is better than rpm, but I think both suck on their own, which is why we have apt and yum.
So did you have to install the dependancies for a specific program
manually then?
Poindexter Fortran wrote to Tony <=-
it for one node before updating the mailer. I'd like to be able to automate editing a text file and SED seems the perfect tool for that.
Hello kc2ugv,
On 08 Dec 16 07:18, kc2ugv wrote to Accession:
Did you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging
facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And
rather than writing a script or
No, why would I turn syslog off? It's a robust logging facility, that is time tested, and not prone to corruption of logs, unlike journald.
That's basically what it seems like you're saying you want to do. When using systemd, journald is the system service for logging in general. So saying you'd
like to shut it off is basically saying one of two things: 1) you want to turn
off/disable your system logging service, or 2) you don't want to use systemd in
general (which is the only option I could actually see agreeing with).
I would like to be able to disable journald, so I'm not wasting resources on it, since syslog facilities are what get used in mass deployments.
I'm fairly certain you cannot use systemd without journald. So if you want to disable it, you can't use systemd. This can still be done if you're willing to
take the right steps to do so.
using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you
can do much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for
something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an
option for that. :)
There's nothing wrong with grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog.
They are all capable of parallel processing the log.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with them. I said journalctl makes things
easier by giving command line options to do the same exact thing.
Regardless, don't use that for much other than quick reports, on the spot. On large scale deployments, syslog ships the logs to a ACID-compliant db backend. Why waste resources on journald, whose db
is not ACID compliant?
Maybe it has a compliance with something else that can be used instead? After all, when upgrading one system on a large scale deployment, usually you're doing a lot more than just that one. Obviously, journald is going to have one looking for a new way to gather everything together in a new form of db.
You seem to keep going back to original programs you've been used to using. It
doesn't seem like the move to systemd is going to cater to what everyone has been used to for however long. I think the major issues people against systemd
are having is that they've done something a certain way for so long and now they're somewhat being forced to learn something different.. and I'm sure it's
a hell of a lot of work upgrading large scale deployments - with or without systemd. But, one can look at the positive side of things too (ie: job security).
What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could
you disable it without losing your network connectivity?
You don't manage a networking interface. It gets brought up at boot, and doesn't change.
Exactly. Then why did you bring it up in the first place?
We're not talking about laptops here. We're talking about servers, which generally stay on, all the time.
Still need networking to be brought up during that first boot, though, right?
If by some change the connection drops, it has a static assignment,
and just starts taking traffic again. No need for "interface management" on servers.
Petition to have it removed with your specific company, then? Heck, I don't know. This part of the discussion seems kind of redundant.
How does systemd make it any easier for devs? Syslog, ssh, inits are all application agnostic.
How about the applications themselves, and not the system dependant stuff? Applications can now ship with simple .service files that will work on every distribution out there using systemd, straight from upstream. I seem to recall
distros using sysvinit even differing on the location/placement of init scripts, rather than joining together to make them work across many platforms?
There's nothing to change upstream, anymore than there was prior to systemd.
It's not about changing, it's about providing a simple service file, and no matter what distro it goes to, will work without having to modify it to suit said distro.
As for RHEL/Centos deploying systemd, of course they are: RH is the group that wrote it, and is pushing it. They are looking to mold
Linux into what makes money for them, not to be the best OS.
What distros still _don't_ use systemd? I'm assuming Slackware and Gentoo right
off the bat, but any others?
Regards,
Nick
... " . ."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
* Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
Synchronet thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
On 2016-12-08 04:01 PM, Accession wrote:https://devuan.org/
Hello kc2ugv,Devuan, something like that.
On 08 Dec 16 07:18, kc2ugv wrote to Accession:
thatDid you ever want to turn syslog off? I mean, it's the logging
facility for systemd. Why would you want to turn it off? And
rather than writing a script or
No, why would I turn syslog off? It's a robust logging facility,
is time tested, and not prone to corruption of logs, unlikejournald.
That's basically what it seems like you're saying you want to do. When
using
systemd, journald is the system service for logging in general. So
saying you'd
like to shut it off is basically saying one of two things: 1) you want
to turn
off/disable your system logging service, or 2) you don't want to use
systemd in
general (which is the only option I could actually see agreeing with).
I would like to be able to disable journald, so I'm not wasting
resources on it, since syslog facilities are what get used in mass
deployments.
I'm fairly certain you cannot use systemd without journald. So if you
want to
disable it, you can't use systemd. This can still be done if you're
willing to
take the right steps to do so.
using things like grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog, you
can do much easier with journalctl options. Want to look for
something that happened 10 times in the last hour? There's an
option for that. :)
There's nothing wrong with grep/awk/sed to pull things from syslog.
They are all capable of parallel processing the log.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with them. I said journalctl
makes things
easier by giving command line options to do the same exact thing.
Regardless, don't use that for much other than quick reports, on thewhose db
spot. On large scale deployments, syslog ships the logs to a
ACID-compliant db backend. Why waste resources on journald,
is not ACID compliant?
Maybe it has a compliance with something else that can be used
instead? After
all, when upgrading one system on a large scale deployment, usually
you're
doing a lot more than just that one. Obviously, journald is going to
have one
looking for a new way to gather everything together in a new form of db.
You seem to keep going back to original programs you've been used to
using. It
doesn't seem like the move to systemd is going to cater to what
everyone has
been used to for however long. I think the major issues people against
systemd
are having is that they've done something a certain way for so long
and now
they're somewhat being forced to learn something different.. and I'm
sure it's
a hell of a lot of work upgrading large scale deployments - with or
without
systemd. But, one can look at the positive side of things too (ie: job
security).
boot,What did you use to manage your network before systemd? And could
you disable it without losing your network connectivity?
You don't manage a networking interface. It gets brought up at
and doesn't change.
Exactly. Then why did you bring it up in the first place?
We're not talking about laptops here. We're talking about servers,
which generally stay on, all the time.
Still need networking to be brought up during that first boot, though,
right?
If by some change the connection drops, it has a static assignment,
and just starts taking traffic again. No need for "interface
management" on servers.
Petition to have it removed with your specific company, then? Heck, I
don't
know. This part of the discussion seems kind of redundant.
How does systemd make it any easier for devs? Syslog, ssh, initsare
all application agnostic.
How about the applications themselves, and not the system dependant
stuff?
Applications can now ship with simple .service files that will work on
every
distribution out there using systemd, straight from upstream. I seem
to recall
distros using sysvinit even differing on the location/placement of init
scripts, rather than joining together to make them work across many
platforms?
There's nothing to change upstream, anymore than there was prior to
systemd.
It's not about changing, it's about providing a simple service file,
and no
matter what distro it goes to, will work without having to modify it
to suit
said distro.
As for RHEL/Centos deploying systemd, of course they are: RH is the
group that wrote it, and is pushing it. They are looking to mold
Linux into what makes money for them, not to be the best OS.
What distros still _don't_ use systemd? I'm assuming Slackware and
Gentoo right
off the bat, but any others?
Regards,
Nick
... " . ."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827
* Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
Synchronet thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
At work, when *nix is required, they are strictly CEntOS. There are probably 200 *nix servers. At my day job I support ~20K M$
workstations and have limited involvment in server management. I have a few M$ and *nix servers helping me support the workstations, but the infrastructure consists of about 2K M$ server systems.
Sounds like a fun day at the office. I take it they tend to leave those CentOS systems alone for the most part then (except possibly some major security updates)?
Regards,
Nick
Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I figured I'd
ask just to get an idea.
Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy war ;-)
On 11/30/2016 12:42 AM, Chris wrote:I have found my new home in Ubuntu MATE. It has the needed packages and
Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I
figured I'd
ask just to get an idea.
Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy
war ;-)
I never could of any reason to use linux for a long time. (Tried once,
NIC driver didnt work, gave up).
Eventually I moved SBBS to ubuntu before they got a Windows 8 interface.
:P I chose ubuntu at the time because that was the preferred distro of
the local user group before they disbanded.
When ubuntu went windows 8, I went with Mint & Cinnamon.
I've messed around with FreeBSD also and don't really have a problem
with that.
I always wanted to make some desklets or what not for SBBS, but I never
get motivated to do any of that.
Most of the linux desktop enviroments for me feel pretty Windows 3.1 typically, so I could probably use any of them and not really care. :)
-Mindless Automaton
---
Synchronet Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org
On 11/30/2016 12:42 AM, Chris wrote:Also, Ubuntu seems to love giving errors on my hardware. Always.
Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I
figured I'd
ask just to get an idea.
Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy
war ;-)
I never could of any reason to use linux for a long time. (Tried once,
NIC driver didnt work, gave up).
Eventually I moved SBBS to ubuntu before they got a Windows 8 interface.
:P I chose ubuntu at the time because that was the preferred distro of
the local user group before they disbanded.
When ubuntu went windows 8, I went with Mint & Cinnamon.
I've messed around with FreeBSD also and don't really have a problem
with that.
I always wanted to make some desklets or what not for SBBS, but I never
get motivated to do any of that.
Most of the linux desktop enviroments for me feel pretty Windows 3.1 typically, so I could probably use any of them and not really care. :)
-Mindless Automaton
---
Synchronet Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org
On 2016-12-16 04:10 PM, Mindless Automaton wrote:My hardware being the Toshiba laptop in this case.
On 11/30/2016 12:42 AM, Chris wrote:Also, Ubuntu seems to love giving errors on my hardware. Always.
Ok, while I'm not sure I picked the best subject title for this, I
figured I'd
ask just to get an idea.
Just curious how others approach it. And hopefully can start a holy
war ;-)
I never could of any reason to use linux for a long time. (Tried once,
NIC driver didnt work, gave up).
Eventually I moved SBBS to ubuntu before they got a Windows 8 interface.
:P I chose ubuntu at the time because that was the preferred distro of
the local user group before they disbanded.
When ubuntu went windows 8, I went with Mint & Cinnamon.
I've messed around with FreeBSD also and don't really have a problem
with that.
I always wanted to make some desklets or what not for SBBS, but I never
get motivated to do any of that.
Most of the linux desktop enviroments for me feel pretty Windows 3.1
typically, so I could probably use any of them and not really care. :)
-Mindless Automaton
---
Synchronet Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org
| Sysop: | Tandy |
|---|---|
| Location: | New York, USA |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 13 (0 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 01:36:46 |
| Calls: | 335 |
| Messages: | 112,908 |
