similar to: OT: systemd Poll

On Mon, April 10, 2017 7:29 am, Steve Clark wrote: > On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote: >> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote: >>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": >>> >>> "All truth passes through three stages. >>> First, it is ridiculed. >>> Second, it is violently opposed. >>> Third, it is

According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my own scripts that I launched via inittab. As

On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote: > According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": > > "All truth passes through three stages. > First, it is ridiculed. > Second, it is violently opposed. > Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the false ones are eventually derided and toppled.

On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote: > On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote: >> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": >> >> "All truth passes through three stages. >> First, it is ridiculed. >> Second, it is violently opposed. >> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." > All ideas, true or false, follow those

On 04/10/2017 03:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote: >> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I >> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my >> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the >> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. >> >> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to

> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I > never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my > own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the > simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. > > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently

On 04/10/2017 08:13 PM, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > On 04/10/2017 03:20 PM, Pete Biggs wrote: >>> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I >>> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my >>> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the >>> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.

Another huge concern: It breaks, someone else has to fix it because it's in the C source - after it reaches a high enough priority. At least with scripts you could conceivably hack it. From what I've read there is some ability to get systemd to defer to a script, I'm going to have to become an expert at that. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Ferrell" <bferrell

On 09/04/17 14:39, Anthony K wrote: > > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? Thanks for all those that responded. systemd still appears to be a sore topic. systemd is still coping a whole lot of ridicule but not so violent opposition. Can't say I understand why, but you

On 4/8/2017 9:39 PM, Anthony K wrote: > > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? I wish the documentation was a bit better. systemd and networkmanager definitely change the rules... I had a minimal C7 VM where I had a heck of a time getting it to use the right DNS servers,

> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you still > ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running SystemD for a while now honestly I don't mind it. While the language used (units, targets)

On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote: > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you > still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? I think the points been made, can we all move along and let this thread be. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

<humor for the day>Why don't we discuss something ***less*** controversial, like politics or religion?</humor for the day> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karanbir Singh" <mail-lists at karan.org> To: "centos" <centos at centos.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:19:43 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K

Pete Orrall wrote: >> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you >> still >> ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? > > I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling > the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running > SystemD for a while now honestly I

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 1:06 PM Nicolas Kovacs <info at microlinux.fr> wrote: > Le 08/04/2018 ? 13:54, Nicolas Kovacs a ?crit : > > As far as I can tell, there would be several solutions to this problem. > > > > 1. Ask the EPEL maintainers to keep the application up-to-date. > > > > 2. Patch the darn thing so I don't get the annoying popup. > > >

Hello, it would be nice to know in the community as it is the maturity of the fourth samba at putting in a production environment. It would be wise to put the Samba 4 in a production environment, or would play the most recommended solution samba + openldap? Att, Victor -- ?Encarada do ponto de vista da juventude, a vida parece um futuro indefinidamente longo, ao passo que, na velhice, ela

xend has a timeout such that if an ''xm shutdown'' request does not result in the domain shutting down within a certain time period, the domain is violently destroyed. This seems like a strange choice - if the domain isn''t responding properly to such requests, then it must be in a buggy state, and should surely be preserved for administrator action (dumping core,

On 21.02.2016 19:10, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:03:15 +0100 > Thomas Leuxner <tlx at leuxner.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >> https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/53cc71cae88ee81fd7eae47aed743496f8c884a2 > [snip] > >> The PID-File seems to be expected under yet another sub-dir >> of /var/run/dovecot. > I wasn't aware that any Dovecot

On 02/22/2016 06:31 AM, Noel Butler wrote: >>>> https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/53cc71cae88ee81fd7eae47aed743496f8c884a2 >>>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> The PID-File seems to be expected under yet another sub-dir >>>> of /var/run/dovecot. >>> I wasn't aware that any Dovecot functionalities have become dependent

Hi! I want to return a matrix. The code does the R interfacing. This version does it fine. SEXP ans,dim; PROTECT(ans = NEW_NUMERIC(count*2)); memcpy(NUMERIC_POINTER(ans),result,count*sizeof(double)); memcpy(&(NUMERIC_POINTER(ans)[count]),occur,count*sizeof(double)); /** PROTECT(dim=NEW_INTEGER(2)); INTEGER_POINTER(dim)[0]=2; INTEGER_POINTER(dim)[1]=count;