Hi,
After being educated on merits and superiority of geek arts in SELinux, Gnome 3, etc, perhaps it is time to change the pace, a little ...
I suddenly realized that it is already past F15 Beta, soon to be gold, and there is that conspicuous silence about ... systemd.
Considering that its impact is even wider and deeper than that of the other gems, it made me wonder what Santa Klaus brought in his big bag this time :-o
For starters, let's consider my own adventures. After installing my F15 Beta for the first time, I noticed that I need sendmail service running for my system status e-mails. Being a bold eagle, somewhat experienced in Computer Science, I assumed I should be able to start figuring it out without studying tons of docs. So, knowing that my new universe starts with systemd, I followed my instincts:
$ systemd --help $ systemd --test
Well, how easy, how intuitive, what a concise and clear output ! And it makes the udev subsystem (as seen by udevadm, etc) a peanut by comparison :-)
OK. It is your turn.
Do not be shy, my fellow Fedora Linux users - share with us your impressions. As I said, systemd is the new kid on the block, soon to be gold.
JB
http://www.popsugar.com/Pictures-Mariah-Careys-Baby-Bump-Posing-Nude-1550151...
... we love you too, Mariah.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0000 (UTC) JB wrote:
Do not be shy, my fellow Fedora Linux users - share with us your impressions. As I said, systemd is the new kid on the block, soon to be gold.
Like everything else in linux, systemd was created to obfuscate system startup when it became apparent that too many people could understand and use the old sysv startup without needing paid help from linux consultants. The last thing they'd ever want to do is provide adequate documentation :-).
http://home.comcast.net/~tomhorsley/wisdom/braindump/darwin.html
In its favor though, it really does seem to provide human perceptible faster startup, which makes it well worth the agony of the learning curve.
I just wish someone had taken the time to fully integrate the old chkconfig tool seamlessly with systemd so you didn't have to change the way you do everything and learn so much new junk. (Yes, it is partially integrated, but things like chkconfig --list won't tell you about services controlled entirely by systemd, etc).
On 04/26/2011 03:54 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:05:16 +0000 (UTC) JB wrote:
Do not be shy, my fellow Fedora Linux users - share with us your impressions. As I said, systemd is the new kid on the block, soon to be gold.
Like everything else in linux, systemd was created to obfuscate system startup when it became apparent that too many people could understand and use the old sysv startup without needing paid help from linux consultants. The last thing they'd ever want to do is provide adequate documentation :-).
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
Rahul
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system laid out not the way I like it." Why I am not surprised?
BTW - on the first peek it looks that a run of 'udevadm trigger' would "fix it".
Michal
On 04/26/2011 11:18 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system laid out not the way I like it." Why I am not surprised?
Did you read it? It actually says "I did not break it - it's been broken for a while in a number of different ways".
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:25:47AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
On 04/26/2011 11:18 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system laid out not the way I like it." Why I am not surprised?
Did you read it? It actually says "I did not break it - it's been broken for a while in a number of different ways".
Yes, I read it. That is a very feeble excuse as what's "been broken for a while" works just fine now so that claim is at least stretching reality.
Watching for some time on lkml how kernel developers try to avoid breaking existing working systems could be educational.
Michal
Hi,
2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:25:47AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
On 04/26/2011 11:18 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system laid out not the way I like it." Why I am not surprised?
Did you read it? It actually says "I did not break it - it's been broken for a while in a number of different ways".
Yes, I read it. That is a very feeble excuse as what's "been broken for a while" works just fine now so that claim is at least stretching reality.
Watching for some time on lkml how kernel developers try to avoid breaking existing working systems could be educational.
AFAIK systemd adds only a warning about /usr on separate partition - nothing more.
Michal
test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:41:42PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:25:47AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
On 04/26/2011 11:18 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system laid out not the way I like it." Why I am not surprised?
Did you read it? It actually says "I did not break it - it's been broken for a while in a number of different ways".
Yes, I read it. That is a very feeble excuse as what's "been broken for a while" works just fine now so that claim is at least stretching reality.
Watching for some time on lkml how kernel developers try to avoid breaking existing working systems could be educational.
AFAIK systemd adds only a warning about /usr on separate partition - nothing more.
So you say that I should not believe in that statement <quote> You can of course say: I don't need 3G, no Audio, D-Bus is evil anyway, and I don't want to print, and plug'n'play isn't for me anyway ..... </quote> from http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken either?
Michal
2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:41:42PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:25:47AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
On 04/26/2011 11:18 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system laid out not the way I like it." Why I am not surprised?
Did you read it? It actually says "I did not break it - it's been broken for a while in a number of different ways".
Yes, I read it. That is a very feeble excuse as what's "been broken for a while" works just fine now so that claim is at least stretching reality.
Watching for some time on lkml how kernel developers try to avoid breaking existing working systems could be educational.
AFAIK systemd adds only a warning about /usr on separate partition - nothing more.
So you say that I should not believe in that statement
<quote> You can of course say: I don't need 3G, no Audio, D-Bus is evil anyway, and I don't want to print, and plug'n'play isn't for me anyway ..... </quote> from http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken either?
It's not what I wanted to say :) systemd adds only a warning - it's not systemd fault that /usr on separate partition doesn't work on all setups.
Michal
test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:56:34PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com:
So you say that I should not believe in that statement
<quote> You can of course say: I don't need 3G, no Audio, D-Bus is evil anyway, and I don't want to print, and plug'n'play isn't for me anyway ..... </quote> from http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken either?
It's not what I wanted to say :) systemd adds only a warning - it's not systemd fault that /usr on separate partition doesn't work on all setups.
In other words - so far this worked fine (regardless of claims to the contrary), now it will not work anymore and "I pretend that this is not my fault as I put up a warning". I fail to see how this differs from a summary I wrote previously.
Michal
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:14 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:56:34PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com:
So you say that I should not believe in that statement
<quote> You can of course say: I don't need 3G, no Audio, D-Bus is evil anyway, and I don't want to print, and plug'n'play isn't for me anyway ..... </quote> from http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken either?
It's not what I wanted to say :) systemd adds only a warning - it's not systemd fault that /usr on separate partition doesn't work on all setups.
In other words - so far this worked fine (regardless of claims to the contrary), now it will not work anymore and "I pretend that this is not my fault as I put up a warning". I fail to see how this differs from a summary I wrote previously.
Clearly you and Lennart have a different perception of things. It is impossible to address this without hard data, so how about you post a detailed explanation of what worked before, what's broken now, and we look into it and figure out whether it's actually anything to do with systemd or not?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:21:24PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:14 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:56:34PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com:
So you say that I should not believe in that statement
<quote> You can of course say: I don't need 3G, no Audio, D-Bus is evil anyway, and I don't want to print, and plug'n'play isn't for me anyway ..... </quote> from http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken either?
It's not what I wanted to say :) systemd adds only a warning - it's not systemd fault that /usr on separate partition doesn't work on all setups.
In other words - so far this worked fine (regardless of claims to the contrary), now it will not work anymore and "I pretend that this is not my fault as I put up a warning". I fail to see how this differs from a summary I wrote previously.
Clearly you and Lennart have a different perception of things. It is impossible to address this without hard data, so how about you post a detailed explanation of what worked before, what's broken now, and we look into it and figure out whether it's actually anything to do with systemd or not?
Well, Lennart says explicitely that with systemd and /usr mounted on its own file system things like audio, or printing or plug'n'play will not work and that he does not care as they were broken anyway. Maybe in some of his warped universe as I can assure you that up and including Fedora 14, and with /usr like the above, all these things do work just fine.
So, if he is correct that these features will be gone then clearly he broke those with systemd regardless of statements to the contrary. Only that he claims that I have to be delusional and I am running Slackware 1.0 instead of Fedora.
Michal
Michal Jaegermann (michal@harddata.com) said:
Well, Lennart says explicitely that with systemd and /usr mounted on its own file system things like audio, or printing or plug'n'play will not work and that he does not care as they were broken anyway. Maybe in some of his warped universe as I can assure you that up and including Fedora 14, and with /usr like the above, all these things do work just fine.
Essentially, you have to ensure that everything called during the boot cycle up until the point that /usr is mounted, including any and all programs called from udev rules, have all the libraries, configuration, and data they need to write to, available on the root partition. (*)
It's something that certainly can be made to work where problems are found, with enough effort - that would be auditing that would have to be done on each release (potentially each update!). So, then it's a cost-benefit ratio, and weigh that at against the usage case of separate /usr (which is.... ?)
Bill
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:02:13PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Michal Jaegermann (michal@harddata.com) said:
Well, Lennart says explicitely that with systemd and /usr mounted on its own file system things like audio, or printing or plug'n'play will not work and that he does not care as they were broken anyway. Maybe in some of his warped universe as I can assure you that up and including Fedora 14, and with /usr like the above, all these things do work just fine.
Essentially, you have to ensure that everything called during the boot cycle up until the point that /usr is mounted,
In Fedora 14 instead of weird excuses you run in /etc/init.d/udev-post
/sbin/udevadm trigger --type=failed --action=add
Most likely ensuring that something of that sort is present in an appropriate place of a boot sequence would solve the issue in practice.
So, then it's a cost-benefit ratio, and weigh that at against the usage case of separate /usr (which is.... ?)
I do not have statistics and you do not have them either. I have seen quite a few in various places. So how much of such breakage is ok?
Michal
Michal Jaegermann (michal@harddata.com) said:
Essentially, you have to ensure that everything called during the boot cycle up until the point that /usr is mounted,
In Fedora 14 instead of weird excuses you run in /etc/init.d/udev-post
/sbin/udevadm trigger --type=failed --action=add
Most likely ensuring that something of that sort is present in an appropriate place of a boot sequence would solve the issue in practice.
File a RFE, then?
So, then it's a cost-benefit ratio, and weigh that at against the usage case of separate /usr (which is.... ?)
I do not have statistics and you do not have them either. I have seen quite a few in various places. So how much of such breakage is ok?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking what you're using separate-/usr for. Is it just out of tradition, or do you have a specific usage case you tackle with it?
Bill
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:41PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking what you're using separate-/usr for.
It is really not a issue what I am doing or not doing and why. An attitude "I can break working systems at my convenience and if you complain then you are stupid" is.
Anyway, I have enough of all this.
Michal
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:41 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking what you're using separate-/usr for. Is it just out of tradition, or do you have a specific usage case you tackle with it?
A propos of this, does anaconda warn you may be doing something silly if you create a separate /usr partition in custom partitioning? Should it?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:31:17PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:41 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking what you're using separate-/usr for. Is it just out of tradition, or do you have a specific usage case you tackle with it?
A propos of this, does anaconda warn you may be doing something silly if you create a separate /usr partition in custom partitioning? Should it?
If /usr as a separate partition has always worked and doesn't now, it should probably throw up a warning, no?
On 04/26/2011 08:22 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:31:17PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:41 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking what you're using separate-/usr for. Is it just out of tradition, or do you have a specific usage case you tackle with it?
A propos of this, does anaconda warn you may be doing something silly if you create a separate /usr partition in custom partitioning? Should it?
If /usr as a separate partition has always worked and doesn't now, it should probably throw up a warning, no?
At least Disk Druid should not be including /usr in the list of suggested mount points for a custom configuration.
A propos of this, does anaconda warn you may be doing something silly if you create a separate /usr partition in custom partitioning? Should it?
If /usr as a separate partition has always worked and doesn't now, it should probably throw up a warning, no?
At least Disk Druid should not be including /usr in the list of suggested mount points for a custom configuration.
We removed /usr from the list of suggested mount points a little while back, so you'd have to type it in yourself.
- Chris
On Tuesday 26 of April 2011 22:02:13 Bill Nottingham wrote:
Essentially, you have to ensure that everything called during the boot cycle up until the point that /usr is mounted, including any and all programs called from udev rules, have all the libraries, configuration, and data they need to write to, available on the root partition. (*)
It's something that certainly can be made to work where problems are found, with enough effort - that would be auditing that would have to be done on each release (potentially each update!). So, then it's a cost-benefit ratio, and weigh that at against the usage case of separate /usr
recently, I've been doing something similar for RHEL, well, some basic check for library dependencies, and it took less than two half-afternoons including reporting the problems found
I'm pretty sure creating complete test wouldn't be much more work
and it can be run automatically, which is nearly zero cost as the infrastructure for automatic testing of releases is already up & running - of course just until a problem is found which needs human attention ... but catching that early will be always much cheaper then breaking users' systems
so, the costs seem low to me, and the benefits? -
(which is.... ?)
- I'd be interested too ... last time I've met this was some form of not-so-thin client setup, where the machines weren't able to boot completely from network for some reason, so that they had basic system installed on them and then mounted the rest from the network
HOWEVER ... I think(!) the requirement to be able to use separate /usr can be derived from FHS - so, Fedora should finally explicitly state that it does not and does not want to support FHS
K.
Karel Volný (kvolny@redhat.com) said:
(which is.... ?)
- I'd be interested too ... last time I've met this was some form
of not-so-thin client setup, where the machines weren't able to boot completely from network for some reason, so that they had basic system installed on them and then mounted the rest from the network
Honestly, that case I'm really not interested in... with PXE and similar tools, this shouldn't be the case today. It is far far far far simpler and cleaner to boot completely from the network.
Bill
On 04/28/2011 10:13 PM, Karel Volný wrote:
HOWEVER ... I think(!) the requirement to be able to use separate /usr can be derived from FHS - so, Fedora should finally explicitly state that it does not and does not want to support FHS
Don't think so. Several sections are just guidelines and distributions are allowed to override them or they are optional. So if you are going to cite FHS, be more specific
Rahul
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:18 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system laid out not the way I like it." Why I am not surprised?
Um. It seems like you failed to read the five points at the bottom. None of this is specific to systemd, and none of it has changed recently. Systemd is just being polite enough to let you know that mounting /usr separately is a configuration that can cause problems, regardless of whether you're using systemd.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:19:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:18 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to all changes isn't applicable here. If you are going to claim lack of documentation, can you be more specific?
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system laid out not the way I like it." Why I am not surprised?
Um. It seems like you failed to read the five points at the bottom.
Yes, I read them. Nice excuses. They do not change reality.
Michal
On 04/27/2011 01:28 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
Yes, I read them. Nice excuses. They do not change reality.
Yes they do not. systemd has no broken anything in that particular setup that wasn't broken already. Unless you can point out a actual bug, you have nothing to complain about. It seems you are running Fedora 14 and trying to parse the words in a wiki page without actually trying it out. I encourage you to actually try it out before taking the discussions any further.
Rahul
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:05 +0000, JB wrote:
Hi,
After being educated on merits and superiority of geek arts in SELinux, Gnome 3, etc, perhaps it is time to change the pace, a little ...
I suddenly realized that it is already past F15 Beta, soon to be gold, and there is that conspicuous silence about ... systemd.
For starters, let's consider my own adventures. After installing my F15 Beta for the first time, I noticed that I need sendmail service running for my system status e-mails. Being a bold eagle, somewhat experienced in Computer Science, I assumed I should be able to start figuring it out without studying tons of docs. So, knowing that my new universe starts with systemd, I followed my instincts:
$ systemd --help $ systemd --test
Your instincts need tweaking. When you absolutely know a given 'thing' is made up of a single command, this is a good way to go. systemd is not such a case. You don't use the systemd executable to manage systemd, in most cases, so looking at the help for the systemd executable isn't going to tell you much.
A better entry point in this case is:
What would be a much better idea would be to just start with the project site:
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
which links you to
Well, how easy, how intuitive, what a concise and clear output ! And it makes the udev subsystem (as seen by udevadm, etc) a peanut by comparison :-)
OK. It is your turn.
Do not be shy, my fellow Fedora Linux users - share with us your impressions. As I said, systemd is the new kid on the block, soon to be gold.
JB
http://www.popsugar.com/Pictures-Mariah-Careys-Baby-Bump-Posing-Nude-1550151...
... we love you too, Mariah.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.comwrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:05 +0000, JB wrote:
Hi,
After being educated on merits and superiority of geek arts in SELinux,
Gnome 3,
etc, perhaps it is time to change the pace, a little ...
I suddenly realized that it is already past F15 Beta, soon to be gold,
and there
is that conspicuous silence about ... systemd.
For starters, let's consider my own adventures. After installing my F15 Beta for the first time, I noticed that I need
sendmail
service running for my system status e-mails. Being a bold eagle, somewhat experienced in Computer Science, I assumed I should be able to start figuring it out without studying tons of docs. So, knowing that my new universe starts with systemd, I followed my
instincts:
$ systemd --help $ systemd --test
Your instincts need tweaking. When you absolutely know a given 'thing' is made up of a single command, this is a good way to go. systemd is not such a case. You don't use the systemd executable to manage systemd, in most cases, so looking at the help for the systemd executable isn't going to tell you much.
A better entry point in this case is:
What would be a much better idea would be to just start with the project site:
I'll admit that I haven't tried F15 yet, but I will have to soon, (so that my app works under systemd (as well as the old way) including any new selinux issues I may get.)
But I would be starting my search for help information with 'man systemd' and failing that... 'apropos systemd' and would hope to find all of the basic information there. I wonder what I will find :-)
Fulko
On 04/26/2011 11:59 AM, Fulko Hew wrote:
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
I'll admit that I haven't tried F15 yet, but I will have to soon, (so
...
But I would be starting my search for help information with 'man systemd' and failing that... 'apropos systemd' and would hope to find all of the basic information there. I wonder what I will find :-)
You should read the site Adam suggested - there are very good and quite complete docs on the web - including a great section on systemd for administrators.
gene/
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:04:35 -0400 Genes MailLists wrote:
You should read the site Adam suggested - there are very good and quite complete docs on the web - including a great section on systemd for administrators.
The great section on systemd for administrators appears to be a historial set of blog entries that reflect the truth at the time the blog was written, not the truth as it stands today with the evolved release.
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 12:14 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:04:35 -0400 Genes MailLists wrote:
You should read the site Adam suggested - there are very good and quite complete docs on the web - including a great section on systemd for administrators.
The great section on systemd for administrators appears to be a historial set of blog entries that reflect the truth at the time the blog was written, not the truth as it stands today with the evolved release.
Remember, my initial email was botched. The site I meant to recommend was https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd . The upstream site has some good stuff but doesn't have an immediate 'here's how to do the basic bits' section.
On 04/26/2011 12:14 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:04:35 -0400
The great section on systemd for administrators appears to be a historial set of blog entries that reflect the truth at the time the blog was written, not the truth as it stands today with the evolved release.
Oh dear ... thanks for pointing that out .. :-(
On 04/26/2011 09:54 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 04/26/2011 12:14 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:04:35 -0400
The great section on systemd for administrators appears to be a historial set of blog entries that reflect the truth at the time the blog was written, not the truth as it stands today with the evolved release.
Oh dear ... thanks for pointing that out .. :-(
Tom is wrong. It is a ongoing series of blogs and nothing so far written in any part of the series is outdated now
Rahul
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry, the partially-quoted mail came out hopelessly garbled as I somehow managed to trigger a 'send this email now!' key combo while editing it. Here's a fixed-up version.
So, knowing that my new universe starts with systemd, I followed my instincts:
$ systemd --help $ systemd --test
Your instincts need tweaking. When you absolutely know a given 'thing' is made up of a single command, this is a good way to go. systemd is not such a case. You don't use the systemd executable to manage systemd, in most cases, so looking at the help for the systemd executable isn't going to tell you much.
A better entry point in this case is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
which lists all the most common operations you'll need. Further reading at http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd : the Tips and Tricks and FAQ pages especially.
I humbly submit to you that a possible explanation for why there hasn't been a lot of heat around systemd lately is that it's working very well.
On 04/26/2011 11:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 08:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry, the partially-quoted mail came out hopelessly garbled as I somehow managed to trigger a 'send this email now!' key combo while editing it. Here's a fixed-up version.
So, knowing that my new universe starts with systemd, I followed my instincts:
$ systemd --help $ systemd --test
m>> Your instincts need tweaking. When you absolutely know a given 'thing'
is made up of a single command, this is a good way to go. systemd is not such a case. You don't use the systemd executable to manage systemd, in most cases, so looking at the help for the systemd executable isn't going to tell you much.
A better entry point in this case is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
which lists all the most common operations you'll need. Further reading at http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd : the Tips and Tricks and FAQ pages especially.
I humbly submit to you that a possible explanation for why there hasn't been a lot of heat around systemd lately is that it's working very well.
Well as a brand new F15 user, it was certainly confusing to me. I'd installed an F15 vm. systemd was confusing enough that I just deleted it, expecting to try it again once the dust had settled.
Maybe there really are sites that effectively describe systemd (I didn't check the ones you mention), but how in the world would a user know about them when the user has a problem with systemd. I certainly didn't.
As an earlier poster said, man systemd (or systemd --help) is the first obvious step. It's not google "systemd fedora". (Especially if you're having connection problems).
sean sean
On 04/29/2011 09:50 AM, sean darcy wrote:
Maybe there really are sites that effectively describe systemd (I didn't check the ones you mention), but how in the world would a user know about them when the user has a problem with systemd. I certainly didn't.
FYI....
I too had issues/questions with systemd.
I typed "systemd fedora" into a google search and the 2 first results gave me all the info I needed.
On 04/28/2011 10:01 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 04/29/2011 09:50 AM, sean darcy wrote:
Maybe there really are sites that effectively describe systemd (I didn't check the ones you mention), but how in the world would a user know about them when the user has a problem with systemd. I certainly didn't.
FYI....
I too had issues/questions with systemd.
I typed "systemd fedora" into a google search and the 2 first results gave me all the info I needed.
Yes, it seems it would. But, FWIW, it never occurred to me that google (bing, ...) was required to configure fedora. Especially when my problem was an ethernet connection :-(
sean
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:15:25 -0400 sean darcy wrote:
I typed "systemd fedora" into a google search and the 2 first results gave me all the info I needed.
Yes, it seems it would. But, FWIW, it never occurred to me that google (bing, ...) was required to configure fedora. Especially when my problem was an ethernet connection :-(
You don't understand: Without google linux itself would be impossible :-).