similar to: Just need to vent

On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 20:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:05:02 -0500 > Mark LaPierre wrote: > > > The main reason I'm still using, nearly obsolete, CentOS 6 is because I > > don't want to have to deal with Gnome 3. > > Install Mate on Centos 7 and you never have to touch Gnome 3. I did, > and my desktops don't look or work any

> On 24 Jan 2016, at 17:45, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 20:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:05:02 -0500 >> Mark LaPierre wrote: >> >>> The main reason I'm still using, nearly obsolete, CentOS 6 is because I >>> don't want to have to deal with Gnome 3. >> >>

On Sun, January 24, 2016 10:45 am, Peter Duffy wrote: > On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 20:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:05:02 -0500 >> Mark LaPierre wrote: >> >> > The main reason I'm still using, nearly obsolete, CentOS 6 is because >> I >> > don't want to have to deal with Gnome 3. >> >> Install Mate on Centos 7 and

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:05:02 -0500 Mark LaPierre wrote: > The main reason I'm still using, nearly obsolete, CentOS 6 is because I > don't want to have to deal with Gnome 3. Install Mate on Centos 7 and you never have to touch Gnome 3. I did, and my desktops don't look or work any different today than they did under Centos 6. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~

On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 11:57 +0000, John Hodrien wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Peter Duffy wrote: > > https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd#Why_Debian_should_default_to_systemd > Might be more convincing if they stuck to reasoned argument, rather than propaganda. "Systemd is straightforward"; "systemd is incredibly fast (1 second to boot)" - reminds me

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:53:27AM +0000, Peter Duffy wrote: > It's not complaining. It's discussion. Discuss it all you like. But "constructive criticism" (used earlier) isn't terribly useful on the CentOS list, because CentOS has very little control over the implementation of init systems or desktop environments. I'm probably the 123123th person on the list to

On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 10:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Would you rather a bunch of that "magic" of PID 1 that systemd handles > get shoved into the kernel (so that PID 1 isn't so special)? Why should the systemd monolithic bloatware be shoved into the kernel, especially when you claim the kernel has "over four million lines of code!" ? Seems like a tactical

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:38:58PM +0000, Always Learning wrote: > When something new is proposed and it is substantially and conspicuously > superior, then everyone wants it. Never noticed that enthusiasm with > systemd's imposition - an imposition nurtured and promoted by the > non-everyday business work environment of experimental Fedora. Maybe you're not aware of it, but

On 01/26/2016 05:51 AM, Peter Duffy wrote: > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 08:05 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> said: >>> The thing which always gets me about systemd is not the thing itself, >>> but the way it was rolled out. When I first installed Red Hat 7, if a >>> window had appeared telling me about

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Peter Duffy wrote: > No one is saying that sysvinit is perfect. What I can't grasp is why > replace it with something which is no less imperfect, and is almost > certainly worse in at least some respects - and to make that replacement > unavoidable and mandatory. Distros weighed up the advantages and disadvantages, and made a decision as to what they thought

On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> wrote: > The thing which always gets me about systemd is not the thing itself, > but the way it was rolled out. When I first installed Red Hat 7, if a > window had appeared telling me about systemd and asking me if I wanted > to use it, or stick with the old init framework, I'd have opted for the > latter

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:51:29AM +0000, Peter Duffy wrote: > I'm also still trying to figure out in what way systemd is supposed to > be "better". I've seen the following things claimed for it: Of the three things you list, hot-plug is certainly an important one. But, it's not the big deal. The big deal is that systemd is not just a fire-and-hope startup system, but

Once upon a time, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> said: > Is systemd the beneficial, reliable, useful and workable "improved init > system" or something with circa 275,000 lines of coding compared to > init's circa 10,000 lines ? Things I have learned in programming > include modular is better than monolithic, and less code better than > M$-style

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 08:05 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> said: > > The thing which always gets me about systemd is not the thing itself, > > but the way it was rolled out. When I first installed Red Hat 7, if a > > window had appeared telling me about systemd and asking me if I wanted > > to use it, or stick

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On > Behalf Of John Hodrien > Sent: den 24 januari 2016 12:47 > To: CentOS mailing list > Cc: Mark LaPierre > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Just need to vent > > My opinion is that there's a silent majority who don't hate Gnome3, and that > it's not half as

On 01/24/2016 11:46 PM, Alice Wonder wrote: > On 01/24/2016 11:31 PM, Sorin Srbu wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >>> Behalf Of John Hodrien >>> Sent: den 24 januari 2016 12:47 >>> To: CentOS mailing list >>> Cc: Mark LaPierre >>> Subject: Re:

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On > Behalf Of Jonathan Billings > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 11:47 AM > To: centos at centos.org > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Just need to vent > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:56:21PM +0000, Always Learning wrote: > > Of course Alice can. All of us can. Hopefully it

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:56:21PM +0000, Always Learning wrote: > Of course Alice can. All of us can. Hopefully it is constructive > criticism. Seeing good software being replaced by less good, less > useful and more awkward software usually provoke the software's users to > protest. Complaining on the CentOS list is probably not that productive, though. -- Jonathan Billings

On 01/23/16 18:20, Alice Wonder wrote: > Sometimes the direction of UI development in gnome really angers me. > > For example, when selecting a font for the gedit text editor - there is > no way to ask it to only show monospace fonts. > > It's a fricken text editor, that should be the default - meaning you > have to do something special to get fonts shown that aren't

On Sat, January 23, 2016 5:20 pm, Alice Wonder wrote: > Sometimes the direction of UI development in gnome really angers me. > > For example, when selecting a font for the gedit text editor - there is > no way to ask it to only show monospace fonts. > > It's a fricken text editor, that should be the default - meaning you > have to do something special to get fonts shown