| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| steveL wrote: | | mv wrote: | | You claim now that /var is for permanent data like stored multimedia files (which according to FHS is /srv). |
It's funny how you only mention "multimedia files" now, when it was also about "huge databases" before. |
What one is for a private user, the other is for a company. Sure, sometimes a user changes its files, and sometimes also in huge databases changes are made, but usually the emphasis of these type of data is not the runtime change. There are of course corner cases for certain databases.
| Quote: | | (/var/db), and /var/www. |
Interesting that after claiming first that one must never change the historical places, you now argue with places which were newer: On stackexchange some people complained about this non-historic location for web-servers.
Of course, the explanation is clear: Depending on the usage, web-server data has partially changed from being "mainly" constant to "mainly" variadic. Interestingly, also in the above thread it is mentioned that perhaps /srv/www is a better place (and that several distributions configure this place by default).
| Quote: | | the point is they know that /var is where their system-wide datasets live |
... and for databases for which the variadic nature is not clear (e.g. because it changes only in exceptional cases), people would first look in /srv: That you have a place to look for such data for which the location is not necessarily canonical is exactly the purpose of /srv according to FHS.
| Quote: | | You don't care about what it was meant for, even though you want to claim designB is superior to designB: only what it's supposedly been used for ie a duplication of /var, likely based on the naming. |
Oh wow, suddenly the naming of files becomes a "design" which can be superior (or inferior) to another "design" (by naming).
If there is any practical meaning of the names, then this that it can make sense in several situation to have a separate partition for /srv so that frequent changes are less likely to cause any harm to more persistent huge data sets.
But this all is the user's decision and depends on its needs and usage situation. Essentially, a name is just a name.
Indeed, I mainly judge names by their names... and by the convention by which they are used nowadays. The latter is what is documented in FHS. I couldn't care less which name conventions were considered 20 years ago on some machine which is now not in wide use anymore. (We do now discuss the general case and not a particular situation when one works for a company where this obsolete configuration is perhaps still in use and should not be changed for some reasons.)
| Quote: | | and the daemon-writers have lost /srv as it was meant to be |
... by whoever meant it to be: Apparently, this suggestion was never submitted when FHS was established, or majority has voted against it; it is not used this way by any distribution I know of (including BSD); it is hard to find any trace of it at all. Obviously, people agreed on another meaning of /srv since 15 years. But yeah, who are these fools who were unable to recognize the obvious meaning of "srv" as "reserved for daemon-writers". Let's break the expectations of these fools and advocate again the one true meaning of this name! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. You're just wittering now, mv, afaic.
You're point-scoring, not considering nor reflecting upon anything.
Maybe take a couple of days out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | You're point-scoring, not considering nor reflecting upon anything. |
Name conventions are name conventions - there is nothing to reflect about.
The only thing one might reflect about in the case of "summarizing" names to directories is that directories can easily be arranged to be on an extra partition/device, and so it can make sense to put together data in a directory which must be treated in a similar manner.
Concerning the former you made some claims contradicting the de facto conventions described in FHS, and concerning the latter you are plainly wrong (mostly permanent data - be it multimedia or other application data which all has to be carefully backed up and is often joint over several machines has nothing in common with runtime data of some daemons).
And instead of admtting that your claims appear strange, you are accusing me of babbling and not reflecting: Wow!
That we discuss aboutt the purpose of /srv and /etc/mtab symlinks in a systemd thread is strange enough anyway, since all this has really absolutely nothing to do with systemd (or other related crazy ideas like policykit). It existed many years before systemd/*kit. It seems that some people are really becoming paranoid and see "the same" conspiracy just about everywhere.
How about getting back to the topic of this thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitzcarraldo
Advocate
Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 2034
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | How about getting back to the topic of this thread? |
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/06/30/0058243/interviews-linus-torvalds-answers-your-question
| Linus Torvalds wrote: | I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area.
Yeah, it may have a few odd corners here and there, and I'm sure you'll find things to despise. That happens in every project. I'm not a huge fan of the binary logging, for example. But that's just an example. I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision.
Yeah, I've had some personality issues with some of the maintainers, but that's about how you handle bug reports and accept blame (or not) for when things go wrong. If people thought that meant that I dislike systemd, I will have to disappoint you guys. |
_________________
Clevo W230SS: amd64, VIDEO_CARDS="intel modesetting nvidia".
Compal NBLB2: ~amd64, xf86-video-ati. Dual boot Win 7 Pro 64-bit.
OpenRC udev elogind & KDE on both.
Fitzcarraldo's blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think most of us have said that there are some things that systemd does better vs sysv init.
And I don't hate systemd, I just want a choice as to whether to use it or not.
As far as whether Linus likes it or not, it's really immaterial as it doesn't really have anything to do with the kernel.
As he says "I don't see myself getting into that whole area". So he's not going to write one of his own.
I'm pretty sure that Linus also doesn't care what gtk, qt, gnome, kde, etc want to do as a piece of user software.
He's only concerned about his area, ie the kernel.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | That we discuss aboutt the purpose of /srv and /etc/mtab symlinks in a systemd thread is strange enough anyway, since all this has really absolutely nothing to do with systemd (or other related crazy ideas like policykit). It existed many years before systemd/*kit. It seems that some people are really becoming paranoid and see "the same" conspiracy just about everywhere.
How about getting back to the topic of this thread? |
Fine so long as you stop the cod psychology and to be blunt: utter bullshit (as quoted here.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitzcarraldo
Advocate
Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 2034
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | And I don't hate systemd, I just want a choice as to whether to use it or not. |
I'm absolutely with you on that. The problem is that systemd is insidious. Had it remained simply an init system I would not have been concerned about its impact on GNU/Linux generally, but it now includes so many other components and functionality that I think it will suppress choice in several areas in the long run. The Windows and Linux paradigms are very different. For example, just because anti-virus companies compete to produce a better firewall than Windows Firewall -- so they can sell their product to the masses -- does not mean something similar will happen in the Linux. I wonder how long ufw will survive now that Ubuntu has switched to systemd and could therefore end up enabling firewalld as the default firewall instead. I wonder what will happen to syslog-ng etc. in the long run if all these binary distributions are bundling systemd with journald. And so on.
_________________
Clevo W230SS: amd64, VIDEO_CARDS="intel modesetting nvidia".
Compal NBLB2: ~amd64, xf86-video-ati. Dual boot Win 7 Pro 64-bit.
OpenRC udev elogind & KDE on both.
Fitzcarraldo's blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They should just call it windowsd and be done with it. Next will be "Linux Genuine Advantage"
Last edited by Tony0945 on Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:39 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54243
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tony0945,
... and we have already had the Gates Public Licence
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ottre
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Posts: 129
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davidm
Guru
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 557
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
As they themselves admit (elsewhere and in one of the replies in that thread), Arch isn't really about user freedom. It's more about the developers and what they want. You the user are pretty much along for the ride unless you become a contributor and earn some say through virtue of merit from your contributions. Further Arch in comparison to Gentoo is more about simplicity for the developers. This means some sacrifices (in comparison to say a distro such as Gentoo) will often be made which reduce your choices. This instance with systemd is one such case. Another is with Arch always basically requiring that you use the newest stable upstream release to be officially supported.
So it's just a fact to say that Gentoo is more about user freedom and choice than Arch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bstaletic
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Apr 2014
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, Arch puts developer/maintainer convenience before user convenience. That never stopped me in making Arch a perfect copy of Gentoo (at least for the packages I cared about). The only problem with Arch I recently had was libgudev mentioned in the mailling list above. The conflict is actually a false positive, and is easily solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | They should just call it windowsd and be done with it. Next will be "Linux Genuine Advantage" |
lol :)
New! Improved! Lennux: with userland.exe! ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dangeroushobo
n00b
Joined: 30 Jul 2015
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
systemd now has its own conference...
systemd.conf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Five hundred euros is a lot of bread.
Welcome to the new Gates, same as the old Gates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 646
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't had time to look into it yet, but williamh now want to bring systemd style mounting to openrc. Here's his second thread on the topic.
There's talk of basically eliminating fstab and traditional mounting in favor for a systemd-like service complete with, for lack of a better term, unit files.
If williamh is so enamored with systemd (and likewise, most of the people commenting on the thread also want systemd), I wish he would just abandon his position of lead on openrc and let people that actually care about openrc run the show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: |
If williamh is so enamored with systemd (and likewise, most of the people commenting on the thread also want systemd), I wish he would just abandon his position of lead on openrc and let people that actually care about openrc run the show. |
Absolutely! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: | | If williamh is so enamored with systemd (and likewise, most of the people commenting on the thread also want systemd), I wish he would just abandon his position of lead on openrc and let people that actually care about openrc run the show. |
| Tony0945 wrote: | | Absolutely! |
++
The idea is complete crap afaic, as it's completely inappropriate for init-level work.
Where are all the threads with people clamouring to be able to depend on mount:usr and mount:var_tmp for example?
Just another idiot use-case looking for a problem, so some nub can call it an "innovative solution", imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1816
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: | | If williamh is so enamored with systemd (and likewise, most of the people commenting on the thread also want systemd), I wish he would just abandon his position of lead on openrc and let people that actually care about openrc run the show. |
Absolutely. If that actually happened I can only hope openrc would get forked. What on earth is wrong with these people? I guess more to the point...what the f*** is wrong with fstab??
| steveL wrote: | | Just another idiot use-case looking for a problem, so some nub can call it an "innovative solution", imo. |
As I always point out, it seems to be a big trend to think that nothing simple can ever be good. if it's not a bloated over abstracted black box it can't possibly be good enough. I can only think it comes from people with an MS background.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tld wrote: | if it's not a bloated over abstracted black box it can't possibly be good enough. I can only think it comes from people with an MS background.
Tom |
Bingo! It's for people that don't understand computers and don't want to. That want a free Windows, not a free Unix.
Also, As a for-profit company Red Hat needs expanding markets for its service. One way is to obfuscate so that only Red Hat's people understand how it fits together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ottre
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tld wrote: | | As I always point out, it seems to be a big trend to think that nothing [simple can ever be good. |
Indeed. That's the point of this new article from the suckless developers:
Systemd is the best example of Suck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schorsch_76
Guru
Joined: 19 Jun 2012
Posts: 450
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
As far as i understand this topic (mount on openrc) williamh is not going to remove fstab, he wants to use services to make the services depend on e.g. mount.home .
_________________
// valid again: I forgot about the git access. Now 1.2GB big. Start: 2015-06-25
git daily portage tree
Web: https://github.com/schorsch1976/portage
git clone https://github.com/schorsch1976/portage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schorsch_76 wrote: | | As far as i understand this topic (mount on openrc) williamh is not going to remove fstab, he wants to use services to make the services depend on e.g. mount.home . |
As asked above: Where are all the threads with people clamouring to be able to depend on mount:usr and mount:var_tmp for example?
Or even mount.home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miket
Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 488
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | As asked above: Where are all the threads with people clamouring to be able to depend on mount:usr and mount:var_tmp for example?
Or even mount.home. |
I would hope that if any such extranea were to make it into openrc, you'd need a USE flag to build it: | Code: | | USE=sillycrap emerge sys-apps/openrc |
Better still would be a separate package that could fit in modularly.
If I understand it, though, the intial complaint was from bug 537996 (>=sys-apps/openrc-0.13 netmount script cannot properly mount nfs shares). Funny enough, I have version 0.13.11 and the NFS shares in my /etc/fstab start up with no problems just as they did before. The problem seems to me to be less of williamh's taking initiative on this point as it is of the people who keep wanting these changes.
If they want systemd features, why don't they just use systemd? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| miket wrote: |
If they want systemd features, why don't they just use systemd? |
It depends if the features of systemd are worthwhile. I am not saying this is one of them or any of them, just to dismiss a concept just because it is systemd in origin is a oneTrueScotman stance
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
