similar to: Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)

On 10/18/2018 4:41 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 18, 2018, at 9:41 AM, mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: >> people are tired of screaming and yelling about >> systemd, because we've had years now of the response being "tough, it's >> the Wave of the Future" > We covered that back when RHEL 7 was still in beta: the time is far too late to change

On Oct 18, 2018, at 6:52 PM, Japheth Cleaver <cleaver at terabithia.org> wrote: > > Conoboy, on the other hand, takes great pains during the speech to describe a much more fluid and complex interaction between CentOS and its upstream, and puts forth CentOS as a mechanism (perhaps the best mechanism) for the winder EL community to contribute (something?) back into RHEL's future. I

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 05:52:12PM -0700, Japheth Cleaver wrote: > The wider EL community is trapped between a rock and a hard place > somewhat. If you try to direct Fedora into the needs of EL users, > you stand a good chance of getting told to pound stand, and that EL > is getting in the way of bleeding-edge progress. Traditionally, For what it's worth (I hope something!) I

On Sat, October 20, 2018 8:23 am, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 05:52:12PM -0700, Japheth Cleaver wrote: >> The wider EL community is trapped between a rock and a hard place >> somewhat. If you try to direct Fedora into the needs of EL users, >> you stand a good chance of getting told to pound stand, and that EL >> is getting in the way of bleeding-edge

Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On 10/17/18 7:55 PM, Warren Young wrote: <snip> >> Benno Rice is right: Lennart Poettering gets stuff done. Because he's funded. And I strongly suspect that a lot of that funding comes from M$'s interest in Upstream. <snip> > > With all due respect, many people just stopped offering any argument > about systemd, and simply fled

On 10/20/18 8:37 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > Oh, great, I now can see the world with your eyes! And last part about > servers life cycle wise doesn't sound much different from what I do using > FreeBSD and jails. The only difference is maybe in how frequently I have > to reboot Linux (any flavor) due to kernel or glibc security update > compared to reboot of FreeBSD. Yup.

On 10/20/18 7:42 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > I would like to hear the reasons of those who chose to use Fedora on their > server. Specifically what advantages one has found compared to other > alternatives. And also what kind of server that is. Single > user/home/family one? Serving some department or similar (say 100 people, > who may need services 24/7/365)? I know, this is just

On Sat, October 20, 2018 10:22 am, Yan Li wrote: > On 10/20/18 7:42 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> I would like to hear the reasons of those who chose to use Fedora on >> their >> server. Specifically what advantages one has found compared to other >> alternatives. And also what kind of server that is. Single >> user/home/family one? Serving some department or

Japheth Cleaver wrote: > On 10/19/2018 5:09 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 01:07:46PM +0200, Simon Matter wrote: <snip> > The /sbin/service command is just a shell script. I'd suggest a patch to > send stderr/out to logger as well if I thought it would be accepted. (And > *manually executing* an init script with direct call was something > we

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:25:15AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > Hoping to not offend proponents of systemd/firewalld... Perhaps if you weren't spreading misinformation, we wouldn't be offended? > Linux kernel is already containing chunks of code related to > systemd/firewalld and friends. One can disable stuff during kernel build, > but the result it still is not like the

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 01:07:46PM +0200, Simon Matter wrote: > That's really an important point, because those who started using Linux > with Linux/systemd will be bound to Linux/systemd with their knowledge, > switching to a *BSD or other Unix will be difficult. For me, I don't like > to be limited in such ways. Having worked with the init systems in a bunch of different

On 12 May 2016 at 16:56, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com> wrote: > In my opinion, it would be better overall for the LLVM project if > top-of-trunk is > tested as much as possible, if testing resources are so scarce that a > choice > has to be made between testing top-of-trunk or testing a release branch. > I agree that trunk is more important, with both of my

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:40:44 +0100 David Chisnall via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The end result is that shortly after a release (sometimes every alternate release) is branched a load of downstream projects update to the new APIs, test things, and find a bunch of regressions that have been sitting in the tree for months. We then have to scrabble to bisect and try

On 12 May 2016 at 16:57, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > Errr, Stephen has spoken up here, but my folks are in contact with android > folks pretty much every week, and I don't think what you are stating is > correct on a lot of fronts. I obviously don't speak for Android and have already apologised to Steve about my choice of words. > So if android is

I'll bite: Do you really believe you could ever get these folks to choose consistent llvm versions anyway? Or will you always have to do the work yourself anyway? In my talks with a number of these projects, they pretty much don't care what anyone else does, and plan to stick to their own import/etc schedules no matter what LLVM does with stable releases :) (For reference, Google

> On May 11, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > This is a long email :-) I've made some comments inline, but I'll > summarize my thoughts here: > > - I like to think that the major releases have been shipped on a > pretty reliable six-month schedule lately. So we have that going for > us :-) > > - It

On 10/16/18 1:54 AM, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > Good afternoon from Singapore, > > What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros? > > Is systemd implemented in all the latest Linux distros? > > Please advise. Thank you. > > My advice is to go and read up on the original design goals of systemd.? The information is out there.?

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:54:29AM +0000, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: Troll bait removed. Congrats, folks. You fell for it. This was also troll-posted to fedora-users within seconds of this post. John -- A man who is "of sound mind" is one who keeps the inner madman under lock and key. -- Paul Valery, "Bad Thoughts and Not So Bad", in The Collected

On 10/16/2018 10:27 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:25:15AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >> Also, it is likely that at some point >> systemd-free Linux distribution(s) may fade away. > There was already a move away from SysV init before systemd was > introduced, heck RHEL6/CentOS6 used Upstart instead of SysV. There > are always going to be

<snip> Every couple of months we seem to get a systemd usage discussion on this list. But really, discussions whether to use systemd (or anything else in the RHEL source code) really isn't appropriate here .. because, we rebuild what is released as source code for RHEL. If Red Hat decided to shift from the Linux Kernel to the Windows 10 kernel (or the Free BSD Kernel, or a Mac OS