[gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Paige Thompson]

I just read an article that says systemd is taking over linux and linux
is not linux anymore:
http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/

I kinda have to agree which is partially why I'm not using it. Will
Gentoo have any plans of forcing its users to move to systemd or will I
always (such as its always roughly been) have the option of using init
and openrc as it is now? I personally have no reasons currently to
switch from one to the other. It seems like it might be a great thing if
you have linux containers.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 21.11.2014 um 08:17 schrieb Paige Thompson:

> I just read an article that says systemd is taking over linux and linux
> is not linux anymore:
> http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/
>
> I kinda have to agree which is partially why I'm not using it. Will
> Gentoo have any plans of forcing its users to move to systemd or will I
> always (such as its always roughly been) have the option of using init
> and openrc as it is now? I personally have no reasons currently to

You've been on this list for surely long enough to know, that systemd 
will always be optional for Gentoo users with Openrc not going away too 
soon as the default.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Paige Thompson]

On 11/21/14 07:31, Marc Stürmer wrote:
> Am 21.11.2014 um 08:17 schrieb Paige Thompson:
>
>> I just read an article that says systemd is taking over linux and linux
>> is not linux anymore:
>> http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/
>>
>> I kinda have to agree which is partially why I'm not using it. Will
>> Gentoo have any plans of forcing its users to move to systemd or will I
>> always (such as its always roughly been) have the option of using init
>> and openrc as it is now? I personally have no reasons currently to
>
> You've been on this list for surely long enough to know, that systemd
> will always be optional for Gentoo users with Openrc not going away
> too soon as the default.
>
Being on the list hasn't done me any favors in terms of knowing
architectural plans are to be made. I personally want to believe systemd
will always be optional but I wouldn't rely on that since it's not my
call but I understand that it would have to be fairly mutual amongst
other maintainers. I was hoping this e-mail would find some of those
people.

I remember a time when devfs support was dropped from Gentoo in favor of
udev. I don't remember why but it seems udev is on everything now..
sound familiar? It wasn't that big of a switch for me.. I think there
might have been maybe one or two packages that it affected that I cared
about. On the other hand, today I am a bit more saavy than back then and
I don't really feel like systemd offers anything that I want and it
seems to be followed by a lot of security problems that I don't need.

I don't want to perpetuate ignorance, so correct me if I'm wrong. It
seems like for me specifically to switch to systemd would mean to take
on a lot more complexity than I need if I'm already happy with what I've
got? Asides from where systemd is useful outside of cgroups for
virtualization I fail to understand how process accounting is useful in
any other context except for "multi-user" environments--public shell
servers? I guess I'll have to do some more reading to understand.

It's just nice to know what I have to look forward to in advance. I have
a friend who seems certain that systemd is inevitable despite being
satisfied with openrc. Not trying to troll or force ignorant/zealous
issues.

Thanks

-Paige

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Paige Thompson <erratic@yourstruly.sx> wrote:
> I just read an article that says systemd is taking over linux and linux
> is not linux anymore:
> http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/

I highly recommend the article John Corbet wrote for LWN a week ago:

http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/

TL;DR, the sky is not falling, let's see how systemd evolves and
succeds, fails, or it's replaced.

> I kinda have to agree which is partially why I'm not using it. Will
> Gentoo have any plans of forcing its users to move to systemd or will I
> always (such as its always roughly been) have the option of using init
> and openrc as it is now?

As long as there are developers willing and able to support OpenRC in
Gentoo (and it looks like there are), that will be the case. To make
sure that this remains to be true, help them.

 I personally have no reasons currently to
> switch from one to the other. It seems like it might be a great thing if
> you have linux containers.

It's actually a great thing for a lot of use cases. But it doesn't
seem that Gentoo will change defaults soon, although systemd works
great with it.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's actually a great thing for a lot of use cases. But it doesn't
> seem that Gentoo will change defaults soon, although systemd works
> great with it.
>

My (personal) sense is that in the medium-term we may end up moving to
not having any default at all, just as with bootloaders, kernels,
syslog, crontab, mail, etc.  That is pretty-much the Gentoo way
everywhere else when there are options.

As you already pointed out, as long as somebody cares to maintain
openrc and write init scripts for it, there will be support for it.
Many init scripts and systemd units are contributed by outside users
already, and policy is that maintainers cannot block them from being
added to packages (though they do not have to write/maintain them
personally).

Gentoo doesn't really tend to exclude anything, and inclusion is a
matter of whether somebody wants to put in the work.

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Philip Webb]

141121 Rich Freeman wrote:
> My personal sense is that in the medium-term we may end up
> moving to not having any default at all,
> just as with bootloaders, kernels, syslog, crontab, mail etc.
> That is pretty-much the Gentoo way everywhere else when there are options.
> As you already pointed out, as long as somebody cares to maintain openrc
> and write init scripts for it, there will be support for it.
> Many init scripts and systemd units are contributed by outside users already
> and policy is that maintainers cannot block them from being added to pkgs,
> though they do not have to write/maintain them personally.
> Gentoo doesn't really tend to exclude anything
> and inclusion is a matter of whether somebody wants to put in the work.

Adoption of Systemd by other major distros sb good for Gentoo.
Disgruntled Debians, Fedoras, Archies (IIRC they've also adopted it)
will have a choice of giving in or moving to Slackware or Gentoo.
Many of them may decide the moderate amount of extra work with Gentoo
is well worth the freedom to use a more traditional init system
& as serious programmers, many wb able to offer help to Gentoo development.
Time will tell, but probably fairly soon.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 21.11.2014 um 18:36 schrieb Philip Webb:

> Adoption of Systemd by other major distros sb good for Gentoo.
> Disgruntled Debians, Fedoras, Archies (IIRC they've also adopted it)
> will have a choice of giving in or moving to Slackware or Gentoo.

Well, Gentoo is for sure quite a different beast compared to Fedora, 
Debian or Ubuntu.

I don't think so, that many people are going to switch to Gentoo just 
because of Systemd, because of the differences between Gentoo and e.g. 
Debian.

All other major distros are: binary distributed (timesaver!), have a 
steady release cycle (contrary to Gentoo's rolling upgrade) and each 
version has a documented feature set.

Especially in server environments many people don't want to compile 
their stuff on production environment and have a rolling upgrade 
distribution. And especially in server environments there seems to be 
the biggest resistance against systemd.

So naturally they would look for something that has a steady release 
cycle and is binary distributed, without systemd.

E.g. Slackware or FreeBSD does fit that niche.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:54:26 +0100 Marc Stürmer <mail@marc-stuermer.de> wrote:

> Am 21.11.2014 um 18:36 schrieb Philip Webb:
> 
> > Adoption of Systemd by other major distros sb good for Gentoo.
> > Disgruntled Debians, Fedoras, Archies (IIRC they've also adopted it)
> > will have a choice of giving in or moving to Slackware or Gentoo.
> 
> Well, Gentoo is for sure quite a different beast compared to Fedora, 
> Debian or Ubuntu.
> 
> I don't think so, that many people are going to switch to Gentoo just 
> because of Systemd, because of the differences between Gentoo and e.g. 
> Debian.

I switched from Ubuntu 10.04 to Gentoo just because it forced closing
window button "x" to the upper-left corner of the window in Unity of
Ubuntu 12.04 while I used to look for it in the upper-right corner. :)

So, I see no reason that those that hate systemd would not do the same.

> All other major distros are: binary distributed (timesaver!),

I disagree: the downloading all that crap also takes a lot of time.

> have a steady release cycle (contrary to Gentoo's rolling upgrade)

Steady "release cycle" is also not so good.

Back to my example: I used to Ubunto 10.04 LTS with Gnome 2 and out
of a sudden I was supposed to switch to Unity on Ubuntu 12.04.

It led to the protest. :)
 
> Especially in server environments many people don't want to compile 
> their stuff on production environment and have a rolling upgrade 
> distribution.

May be. I do not run servers so far. Only a couple of desktops.

> And especially in server environments there seems to be 
> the biggest resistance against systemd.
> 
> So naturally they would look for something that has a steady release 
> cycle and is binary distributed, without systemd.
> 
> E.g. Slackware or FreeBSD does fit that niche.
 

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 24.11.2014 um 19:25 schrieb Gevisz:

> I switched from Ubuntu 10.04 to Gentoo just because it forced closing
> window button "x" to the upper-left corner of the window in Unity of
> Ubuntu 12.04 while I used to look for it in the upper-right corner. :)
>
> So, I see no reason that those that hate systemd would not do the same.

I also did for my own server.

But the real strength and home of Debian on a server is in the corporate 
environment, and in a CE you are facing other challenges, namely:

* long term support (meaning for a few years),
* stable releases with a more or less stable and predictable release cycle,
* steady stream of security updates as long as the release is being 
supported.

Which also explains why in that field so many people are so heavily 
against SystemD, because it is still:

* quite a young software project, which needs more time to mature in 
their eyes,
* still a fast moving target, with adding more features over features 
with every new release,
* maybe also the philosophical aspect that it violates one of the 
primary paradigms of UNIX: do one thing only and do that well,
* and it forces them to learn a new way to configure their system, if 
they would use it.

> I disagree: the downloading all that crap also takes a lot of time.

Downloading binaries takes of course some time, yes. But downloading 
e.g. the source code of Chromium compared to the binary of Chromium does 
take a multiply longer. And after the download of the binary you just 
need to unpack it and are ready to run it, on Gentoo you need to compile 
it.

So binaries are by every mean faster to download and run than 
downloading the source, compiling it and then running it on a server. 
Even downloading the biggest archives and installing (without 
configuration) is normally done in under one minute. That's the time 
saving aspect, and you got no broken ebuilds. Of course you got another 
can of worms that may be bug you instead.

And if you don't like the example of Chromium, then take MySQL e.g. 
instead.

People in a CE rarely have the time to deal with the added complicity of 
Gentoo compared to binary based distributions, and therefore Gentoo just 
don't fit for most of them.

The thing is: compiling your own binaries on a production server is 
something many people won't like, because it takes power from the other 
processes away for that time.

And having a fully fledged C/C++ compiler running on your server is a 
security hole, if you are paranoid enough.

Of course you could setup just a compiling server for all of your other 
servers, but this takes time and adds complexity.

> Steady "release cycle" is also not so good.

It depends on your case.

All the major BSDs, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, have had a steady 
release cycle - a new release every half year - for almost two decades 
now and they are content with that.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:13:53 +0100 Marc Stürmer <mail@marc-stuermer.de> wrote:

> Am 24.11.2014 um 19:25 schrieb Gevisz:
> 
> > I switched from Ubuntu 10.04 to Gentoo just because it forced closing
> > window button "x" to the upper-left corner of the window in Unity of
> > Ubuntu 12.04 while I used to look for it in the upper-right corner. :)
> >
> > So, I see no reason that those that hate systemd would not do the same.
> 
> I also did for my own server.
> 
> But the real strength and home of Debian on a server is in the corporate 
> environment, and in a CE you are facing other challenges, namely:
> 
> * long term support (meaning for a few years),

Yes, I do agree with you. Long term support is indeed a challenge,
especially when it ends and you have to update to the new release. 

> * stable releases with a more or less stable and predictable release cycle,

Yes, predictable release cycle with unpredictable changes from
one release to the other is also a challenge. Especially when your
video card stops working after the upgrade. For example from Ubuntu 6.04
to Ubunto 8.04. 

> * steady stream of security updates as long as the release is being 
> supported.

Yes, updates come almost every day and their downloading and installing
takes almost the same time as daily upgrade of Gentoo. (Except for compiling
a new Firefox, of course. But now, this problem in Gentoo is solved by
freezing the version of this browser: 24.8.0 in stable Gentoo tree vs
33.0 in Ubunto 12.04. :)  

> 
> > ... the downloading all that crap also takes a lot of time.
> 
> Downloading binaries takes of course some time, yes. But downloading 
> e.g. the source code of Chromium compared to the binary of Chromium does 
> take a multiply longer. And after the download of the binary you just 
> need to unpack it and are ready to run it, on Gentoo you need to compile 
> it.
> 
> So binaries are by every mean faster to download and run than 
> downloading the source, compiling it and then running it on a server.

It depends on your connection speed. 
 
> Even downloading the biggest archives and installing (without 
> configuration) is normally done in under one minute.

It usually took me from 10 to 20 minutes to download my daily updates
in Ubuntu. For big packages - about 40 minutes or even more.

> That's the time saving aspect

lol :)

> Of course you got another can of worms that may be bug you instead.

My English is not so good to understand idioms
but I guess that here we agree. :)

> And if you don't like the example of Chromium, then take MySQL e.g. 
> instead.
> 
> People in a CE rarely have the time to deal with the added complicity of 
> Gentoo compared to binary based distributions, and therefore Gentoo just 
> don't fit for most of them.

If CE stands for Commercial Environment, I can agree.

> The thing is: compiling your own binaries on a production server is 
> something many people won't like, because it takes power from the other 
> processes away for that time.

Agree.

> And having a fully fledged C/C++ compiler running on your server is a 
> security hole, if you are paranoid enough.

Never thought about it, but may be you are right.
 
> Of course you could setup just a compiling server for all of your
> other servers, but this takes time and adds complexity.

Agree.

> > Steady "release cycle" is also not so good.
> 
> It depends on your case.

Here I also can agree.
 
> All the major BSDs, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, have had a steady 
> release cycle - a new release every half year - for almost two decades 
> now and they are content with that.

Probably they do not change API (or reposition window control buttons :)
every 6 months. 

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 25.11.2014 um 18:44 schrieb Gevisz:

> It usually took me from 10 to 20 minutes to download my daily updates
> in Ubuntu. For big packages - about 40 minutes or even more.
>
>> That's the time saving aspect
>
> lol :)

Not "lol", it is like I told you. Binary distributions are a big, big 
time saver compared to a rolling update source based meta distribution 
like Gentoo.

Another reason why many stick with Distros like e.g. Debian, SuSE or 
Ubuntu is:

* you got a standardized environment/system.

That's also a very big requirement if using it in a corporate 
environment, if not the most important one.

I am not saying that this is not doable with Gentoo, but to achieve it 
with Gentoo you've got to implement quite some things. For Debian e.g. 
it comes free out of the box.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:45:31 +0100 Marc Stürmer <mail@marc-stuermer.de> wrote:

> Am 25.11.2014 um 18:44 schrieb Gevisz:
> 
> > It usually took me from 10 to 20 minutes to download my daily updates
> > in Ubuntu. For big packages - about 40 minutes or even more.
> >
> >> That's the time saving aspect
> >
> > lol :)
> 
> Not "lol", it is like I told you. Binary distributions are a big, big 
> time saver compared to a rolling update source based meta distribution 
> like Gentoo.
> 
> Another reason why many stick with Distros like e.g. Debian, SuSE or 
> Ubuntu is:
> 
> * you got a standardized environment/system.
> 
> That's also a very big requirement if using it in a corporate 
> environment, if not the most important one.

I do agree with you concerning the corporate environment.

Moreover, if I had to maintain a dozen or more *different* computers
for other users, I would prefer to use some binary distro with a
standardized environment than to set up a custom configuration
(including the kernel options) for each of them and then compile
everything on each computer.

However, I do prefer to setup every possible option for my convenience and
compile everything for the better performance on my personal computer.

And for a personal use and not super fast connection to the Internet,
spending time for downloading updates every day is indeed annoying.


Moreover, if I had to maintain computers for *other* users, I would not
mind to upgrade their binary distributions every 2 or, better, every 5 years
even if *their* working environment would every time change from Gnome2
to Unity and then back to Gnome3.

Especially, if it is not my duty to retrain them for this new environment. :)

But for myself, I would prefer that my desktop interface would change as
little as possible, and only in the direction I want. :)

> I am not saying that this is not doable with Gentoo, but to achieve it 
> with Gentoo you've got to implement quite some things. For Debian e.g. 
> it comes free out of the box.
 

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:39:17AM +0200, Gevisz wrote
> 
> Moreover, if I had to maintain computers for *other* users, I would not
> mind to upgrade their binary distributions every 2 or, better, every 5 years
> even if *their* working environment would every time change from Gnome2
> to Unity and then back to Gnome3.
> 
> Especially, if it is not my duty to retrain them for this new environment. :)
> 
> But for myself, I would prefer that my desktop interface would change as
> little as possible, and only in the direction I want. :)

  I've been running ICEWM for over 4 years, and blackbox for a few years
before that.  What desktop interface change? :)

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 26.11.2014 um 21:39 schrieb Walter Dnes:

>    I've been running ICEWM for over 4 years, and blackbox for a few years
> before that.  What desktop interface change? :)

Switching to ratpoison or i3wm, of course. :>

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[thegeezer]

On 24/11/14 19:13, Marc Stürmer wrote:
> Am 24.11.2014 um 19:25 schrieb Gevisz:
>
>> I switched from Ubuntu 10.04 to Gentoo just because it forced closing
>> window button "x" to the upper-left corner of the window in Unity of
>> Ubuntu 12.04 while I used to look for it in the upper-right corner. :)
>>
>> So, I see no reason that those that hate systemd would not do the same.
>
> I also did for my own server.
>
> But the real strength and home of Debian on a server is in the
> corporate environment, and in a CE you are facing other challenges,
> namely:
>
> * long term support (meaning for a few years),

I'd clarify this even more to say almost transparent to install upgrades
within that release cycle

> * stable releases with a more or less stable and predictable release
> cycle,

debatable - i would suggest "better tested" than stable otherwise there
would be no need for debian bugzilla

> * steady stream of security updates as long as the release is being
> supported.
>
> Which also explains why in that field so many people are so heavily
> against SystemD, because it is still:
>
> * quite a young software project, which needs more time to mature in
> their eyes,
> * still a fast moving target, with adding more features over features
> with every new release,
> * maybe also the philosophical aspect that it violates one of the
> primary paradigms of UNIX: do one thing only and do that well,
> * and it forces them to learn a new way to configure their system, if
> they would use it.
>

+1 for all of these

>> I disagree: the downloading all that crap also takes a lot of time.
>
> Downloading binaries takes of course some time, yes. But downloading
> e.g. the source code of Chromium compared to the binary of Chromium
> does take a multiply longer. And after the download of the binary you
> just need to unpack it and are ready to run it, on Gentoo you need to
> compile it.
>

I would argue the opposite. I would say that because of the portage
binary features, and the "possibility an upgrade may not even compile"
it forces me to do better QA on updates.  as an example, I would be less
likely to test and update in debian or red hat before applying a series
of necessary updates.  on gentoo cluster i would install off the cluster
first, ensure everything went smooth then distribute the binaries.  for
issues with conf changes *cough ISC bind and freeradius cough* it means
that i'm well prepared.  it also means that continuous kernel
configuration changes for the various udev updates can be masked and
prepared for in a better way than "oh this week's updates require i
reboot the server"

good luck using custom kernel or initram with the major distros -- i
found that that was a surefire method to bork things, non bootable and
confused app-manager both at the same time.

> So binaries are by every mean faster to download and run than
> downloading the source, compiling it and then running it on a server.
> Even downloading the biggest archives and installing (without
> configuration) is normally done in under one minute. That's the time
> saving aspect, and you got no broken ebuilds. Of course you got
> another can of worms that may be bug you instead.
>
> And if you don't like the example of Chromium, then take MySQL e.g.
> instead.
>
> People in a CE rarely have the time to deal with the added complicity
> of Gentoo compared to binary based distributions, and therefore Gentoo
> just don't fit for most of them.
>
+1 gentoo in a very real sense is "my distribution".  my /etc and my
/var/lib/portage/world and i have geezer-linux-desktop and
geezer-linux-server
but in a corporate environment it is someone else's problem be that low
level... rather than have an inhouse developer to fix the web
application bugs, they would have a "Next Generation Unified Threat
Management Firewall" to block people taking advantage of those bugs.  
the question is how it is sold.
also it is a lot easier for someone to click on the little balloon that
says "updates pending" than to think about what it is they are doing.
equally it is easier to convince a business to buy one server instead of
trying to cluster two or more -- then you _must_ do updates at 3am, but
updates are somehting that should happen when the updater is most alert
imho. the business shifts the responsibility of the down time in the
same way as they would shift the responsibility of the lower levels of
distro management.

> The thing is: compiling your own binaries on a production server is
> something many people won't like, because it takes power from the
> other processes away for that time.
+1
>
> And having a fully fledged C/C++ compiler running on your server is a
> security hole, if you are paranoid enough.
>
+1
> Of course you could setup just a compiling server for all of your
> other servers, but this takes time and adds complexity.
>
surprisingly little - honestly.
>> Steady "release cycle" is also not so good.
>
> It depends on your case.
>
> All the major BSDs, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, have had a steady
> release cycle - a new release every half year - for almost two decades
> now and they are content with that.
>
OT:
one day i thought to try a BSD but then as a penance for my sins i also
read kuro5hin and there was a wonderfully scalding attack [1] on de
raadt.  the truth is probably no where near to the rant but it always
think of it when i see attacks on lennart.  but this did make me
discover something that i thought i'd share here
"BSD is a unix written by unix people for the pc
Linux is a unix written by pc people for the pc"
but its also interesting to note portage has a nod to BSD's "ports
collection"


WARNING link is not safe for work and may cause stomach ulcers
[1] http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2010/6/11/9571/98591

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 871 bytes --]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:06:23 +0000, thegeezer wrote:

> > * stable releases with a more or less stable and predictable release
> > cycle,  
> 
> debatable - i would suggest "better tested" than stable otherwise there
> would be no need for debian bugzilla

The vagaries of English strike again! When Debian use the word stable,
they mean "not changing much" not "the opposite of unstable", as in "a
stable relationship". Which is why the other branch is called "testing"
and "unstable".

While not changing working code very often also leads to the other sort
of stability, the advantage for those managing large numbers of systems
is that they are not continually applying updates and restarting services
and users are not continually presented with slightly different
interfaces.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Love is grand. Divorce is a few grand more.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:25:22 +0200, Gevisz wrote:

> I switched from Ubuntu 10.04 to Gentoo just because it forced closing
> window button "x" to the upper-left corner of the window in Unity of
> Ubuntu 12.04 while I used to look for it in the upper-right corner. :)

Wouldn't it have been easier to use the simple configuration option to
move the button back to where you expected it? Far less effort than
switching distros.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:05:16 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:25:22 +0200, Gevisz wrote:
> 
> > I switched from Ubuntu 10.04 to Gentoo just because it forced closing
> > window button "x" to the upper-left corner of the window in Unity of
> > Ubuntu 12.04 while I used to look for it in the upper-right corner. :)
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier to use the simple configuration option to
> move the button back to where you expected it? Far less effort than
> switching distros.

No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
*forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.

There was not any possibility to change the place of the closing
window frame button in Unity via configuration options. Quite a
lot of Ubuntu users complained about it yet in Ubuntu 10.04,
where the new place of that button was a new default though
it was possible to change it back via configuration options.
In Unity, it was absolutely impossible.

I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was
logical, ergonomic and saved screen space. So, there was nothing
bad placing it there by default, especially for those who never
used computer before.

Even more: if they just had changed a default and allowed changing
it back via configuration option, I would probably switched to the
new place of that button later.

It is *forcing* old users to change their habits just after upgrade
from Ubuntu 10.04 LST to Ubuntu 12.04 LST make me looking for an
alternative distribution. And it was the first time when I carefully
looked though all the alternatives and make my choice consciously.
(Before that my choice was mainly influenced by the people who
helped me to install and maintain my first Linux systems: Suse
at the time when it was still free :), Red Hat :(, or just advised
me to try them: Alt Linux, Ubuntu.)

I think that I made the right choice now and I like Gentoo
distribution, though it has its own shortcomings.

For example, Firefox 24.8.0 in stable Gentoo tree when outdated
Ubuntu 12.04 has Firefox 33.0. (It is not that I am running for
the version numbers but Google sites do not support Firefox 24.8
any more.)  
  

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:53:14 +0200, Gevisz wrote:

> > Wouldn't it have been easier to use the simple configuration option to
> > move the button back to where you expected it? Far less effort than
> > switching distros.  
> 
> No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
> in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
> *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
> frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.

It was possible, Google has hits on this dated from shortly after the
time Unity was released.

> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was
> logical, ergonomic and saved screen space. So, there was nothing
> bad placing it there by default, especially for those who never
> used computer before.

Agreed, I use KDE, which allows button layouts to be changed easily, and
have had the window controls on the left for years.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Always remember to pillage before you burn.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:41:10 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:53:14 +0200, Gevisz wrote:
> 
> > > Wouldn't it have been easier to use the simple configuration option to
> > > move the button back to where you expected it? Far less effort than
> > > switching distros.  
> > 
> > No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
> > in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
> > *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
> > frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.
> 
> It was possible, Google has hits on this dated from shortly after the
> time Unity was released.

Please, give me the link. I will check if it is correct on my old
Ubuntu 12.04 partition (yes, I still have it) and report the result
here.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:09:08 +0200, Gevisz wrote:

> > It was possible, Google has hits on this dated from shortly after the
> > time Unity was released.  
> 
> Please, give me the link. I will check if it is correct on my old
> Ubuntu 12.04 partition (yes, I still have it) and report the result
> here.

Why not Google it yourself?

I know it was possible at the time because I was asked. But I'm not
interested in GNOME so it's not the sort of thing I bother remembering. I
do recall that one way of doing it is with UbuntuTweak.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control!

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:37:48 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:09:08 +0200, Gevisz wrote:
> 
> > > It was possible, Google has hits on this dated from shortly after the
> > > time Unity was released.  
> > 
> > Please, give me the link. I will check if it is correct on my old
> > Ubuntu 12.04 partition (yes, I still have it) and report the result
> > here.
> 
> Why not Google it yourself?

Because it is very hard to google a link if it does not exist. 

Can you, please, help me? :)
 
> I know it was possible at the time because I was asked.
> But I'm not interested in GNOME so it's not the sort of
> thing I bother remembering.

We are talking about Unity, not Gnome.

Just one small link on how to relocate window control buttons in Unity!

Please!

 
 

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 846 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:55:07 +0200, Gevisz wrote:

> > > Please, give me the link. I will check if it is correct on my old
> > > Ubuntu 12.04 partition (yes, I still have it) and report the result
> > > here.
> > 
> > Why not Google it yourself?
> 
> Because it is very hard to google a link if it does not exist. 
> 
> Can you, please, help me? :)

I did, I told you about UbuntuTweak, but here's a link
http://bit.ly/1rpmTbK

> > I know it was possible at the time because I was asked.
> > But I'm not interested in GNOME so it's not the sort of
> > thing I bother remembering.
> 
> We are talking about Unity, not Gnome.

From wikipedia's page on Unity:

"Unity is a graphical shell for the GNOME desktop environment developed by
Canonical Ltd."


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Always be sincere even if you don't mean it.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:49:53 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:55:07 +0200, Gevisz wrote:
> 
> > > > Please, give me the link. I will check if it is correct on my old
> > > > Ubuntu 12.04 partition (yes, I still have it) and report the result
> > > > here.
> > > 
> > > Why not Google it yourself?
> > 
> > Because it is very hard to google a link if it does not exist. 
> > 
> > Can you, please, help me? :)
> 
> I did, I told you about UbuntuTweak, but here's a link
> http://bit.ly/1rpmTbK

Yes, but this simply does not work.

This the bug report from April 19, 2014

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-tweak-tool/+bug/1310056

And here is some quotes:

    mikolajek (mikorutko) wrote on 2014-09-03:

    It looks like the bug is still present.
    I've just installed a fresh 14.04 copy
    together with Unity Tweak Tool 0.0.6
    and even though I select "right" for
    my window controls, they are not moved
    there. After I re-open window properties
    the setting is reverted back to default (Left).

    Iron Davey wrote on 2014-09-04:

    Confirmed as well with an upgrade to 14.04.1.
    This is truly annoying as I use Crossover to
    run many windows applications needed for work, and
    those apps all have the window controls on the right.

    J Phani Mahesh (phanimahesh) wrote on 2014-09-05: 	#14

    Hello guys, Sorry, but *this can't be fixed*.

    Ubuntu decided to change the window titlebar behaviour
    in 14.04. So far, i have been unable to find any
    alternative way to change window decoration. I am
    of the opinion it isn't possible.

    If you think it is possible, and are able to successfully
    change the controls in 14.04 and up using any available
    tool/command or any tweak whatsoever, let me know how
    you did it, and I'll figure out a way to do it from UTT again.

Epic fail, isn't?

Mark Shuttleworth managed to create "can't-be-solved" problem
just of an open air. He always stated that his goal with Ubuntu
is to replace MS Windows. Now he has already achieved it:
Ubuntu is as unconfigurable as MS Windows. No difference any more.
 
> > > I know it was possible at the time because I was asked.
> > > But I'm not interested in GNOME so it's not the sort of
> > > thing I bother remembering.
> > 
> > We are talking about Unity, not Gnome.
> 
> From wikipedia's page on Unity:
> 
> "Unity is a graphical shell for the GNOME desktop environment developed by
> Canonical Ltd."
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:24:34 +0200, Gevisz wrote:

> > > Can you, please, help me? :)  
> > 
> > I did, I told you about UbuntuTweak, but here's a link
> > http://bit.ly/1rpmTbK  
> 
> Yes, but this simply does not work.

OK, so it doesn't work.

The point was that it could be changed. I neither remember nor care how,
but I did do it. I have enough trouble remembering things that are useful
to me without wasting valuable storage space on irrelevant trivia.

It's a desktop I don't use on a distro I don't use that is a couple of
years old anyway. It's about as on-topic and relevant as WinXP.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Never argue with an idiot. First, they bring you down to their level.
Then they beat you with experience.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Emanuele Rusconi]

On 25 November 2014 at 23:42, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The point was that it could be changed. […]
>
> […] It's about as on-topic and relevant as WinXP.

No, the point was that sometimes even a small annoyance is plenty
enough to drive people away.
The point was that when you feel that the distro you're using takes a
direction that doesn't fit you, you look for alternatives.
And that's perfectly on-topic.

What's off-topic is to figure out if the damn buttons could actually
be moved or not.

-- Emanuele Rusconi

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 970 bytes --]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:35:18 +0100, Emanuele Rusconi wrote:

> > The point was that it could be changed. […]
> >
> > […] It's about as on-topic and relevant as WinXP.  
> 
> No, the point was that sometimes even a small annoyance is plenty
> enough to drive people away.

Well, if you put it like that.

> The point was that when you feel that the distro you're using takes a
> direction that doesn't fit you, you look for alternatives.
> And that's perfectly on-topic.

In which case,

> What's off-topic is to figure out if the damn buttons could actually
> be moved or not.

so is this, as it determines the level of annoyance.

Changing distros because of a default for a configuration is like
changing your car because the ashtray is full.

Yes, that's a totally spurious analogy, as was the distro-switch that
spawned this sub-thread.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is 100%.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:56:58 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:35:18 +0100, Emanuele Rusconi wrote:
> 
> > > The point was that it could be changed. […]
> > >
> > > […] It's about as on-topic and relevant as WinXP.  
> > 
> > No, the point was that sometimes even a small annoyance is plenty
> > enough to drive people away.
> 
> Well, if you put it like that.
> 
> > The point was that when you feel that the distro you're using takes a
> > direction that doesn't fit you, you look for alternatives.
> > And that's perfectly on-topic.
> 
> In which case,
> 
> > What's off-topic is to figure out if the damn buttons could actually
> > be moved or not.
> 
> so is this, as it determines the level of annoyance.
> 
> Changing distros because of a default for a configuration is like
> changing your car because the ashtray is full.

Your analogy is not full.

Just imagine that you do not smoke at all, have an allergy
for the smoke and the smell of cigarettes ash. (It is easy
for me because it is exactly my case.)

Then, imagine that during the test drive of a new car you found
out that its ashtray is full of ash that smells very strong and
to empty it you should first completely disassemble the car,
disinfect all its parts, change the parts that is impossible to
disinfect (seats, etc.) and reassemble it again.

Moreover, asking the car maker about it, you get the answer
that its not a defect but a new feature that lets you enjoy
the smell of *his* favorite cigarettes and frees you from the
necessity to smoke while driving.

The latter, in my view, is more full analogy of a annoying bag
in the distro interface that was introduced by design and that
nobody want or can fix for at least half a year and, when
it finally gets fixed, the next distro just reproduces it anew.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:35:18 +0100 Emanuele Rusconi <emarsk@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25 November 2014 at 23:42, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > The point was that it could be changed. […]
> >
> > […] It's about as on-topic and relevant as WinXP.
> 
> No, the point was that sometimes even a small annoyance is plenty
> enough to drive people away.
> The point was that when you feel that the distro you're using takes a
> direction that doesn't fit you, you look for alternatives.

It is exactly what I intended to say from the beginning.

If the distro devs leave you no choice (at least in arranging its working
iterface) and starting to say that they know better what you need,
it is time to look for alternatives.   

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[thegeezer]

On 25/11/14 23:35, Emanuele Rusconi wrote:
> On 25 November 2014 at 23:42, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>> The point was that it could be changed. […]
>>
>> […] It's about as on-topic and relevant as WinXP.
> No, the point was that sometimes even a small annoyance is plenty
> enough to drive people away.
Let ma add a "me too"
I was quite happy on ubuntu with gnome2 and compiz on the desktop
then unity came along with the sidebar that you couldn't move/hide and a
semi broken compiz
so i moved to bodhi and jeff had really done well to create it but
importantly i had my desktop cube back
then bodhi 2 with the new version of enlightenment and i lost my compiz cube
i could live with the loss of the 3d cube because enlightenment is awesome
but then i tried update my system and sadly jeff had slipped with the
update of the distro, and because it is esentially ubuntu i thought no
bother, here we go.
it _sort of_ worked
so i tried gnome3 on a live disk and omg even less configurable when
that came out without about 100 extra utils that some work for some
version and others for another.... yeah i've no time for that
so i thought look, i have gentoo on all servers why the big headache
with gentoo on the desktop?
i already knew loads about X and session management etc but all of this
was useless to me, all i needed was gentoo and an enlightenment overlay
and i was 90% there

in short: the power of linux is that mostly data and programs are very
separated and it is very easy to jump ship when you lose features. also
long term release jumps do not upgrade well.  I can tell you more
stories of having to "reinstall over the top" every five years and then
apt-get  install $fromsavedfile
> The point was that when you feel that the distro you're using takes a
> direction that doesn't fit you, you look for alternatives.
> And that's perfectly on-topic.
>
> What's off-topic is to figure out if the damn buttons could actually
> be moved or not.
>
> -- Emanuele Rusconi
>

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:37:48 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:09:08 +0200, Gevisz wrote:
> I do recall that one way of doing it is with UbuntuTweak.

Unity-tweak-tool cant move window buttons to the right in 14.04
as of September 3, 2014:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-tweak-tool/+bug/1310056

Here is some quotes:

    mikolajek (mikorutko) wrote on 2014-09-03:

    It looks like the bug is still present.
    I've just installed a fresh 14.04 copy
    together with Unity Tweak Tool 0.0.6
    and even though I select "right" for
    my window controls, they are not moved
    there. After I re-open window properties
    the setting is reverted back to default (Left).

    Iron Davey wrote on 2014-09-04:

    Confirmed as well with an upgrade to 14.04.1.
    This is truly annoying as I use Crossover to
    run many windows applications needed for work, and
    those apps all have the window controls on the right.

    J Phani Mahesh (phanimahesh) wrote on 2014-09-05: 	#14

    Hello guys, Sorry, but *this can't be fixed*.

    Ubuntu decided to change the window titlebar behaviour
    in 14.04. So far, i have been unable to find any
    alternative way to change window decoration. I am
    of the opinion it isn't possible.

    If you think it is possible, and are able to successfully
    change the controls in 14.04 and up using any available
    tool/command or any tweak whatsoever, let me know how
    you did it, and I'll figure out a way to do it from UTT again.

The last one is still unanswered.

Epic fail, isn't it?

The Mark Shuttleworth always stated that its goal with Ubuntu
is to replace MS Windows. Now he has already achieved it:
Ubuntu is as unconfigurable as MS Windows. No difference any more.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Maxim Wexler]

>
> No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
> in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
> *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
> frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.
>
> There was not any possibility to change the place of the closing
> window frame button in Unity via configuration options. Quite a
> lot of Ubuntu users complained about it yet in Ubuntu 10.04,
> where the new place of that button was a new default though
> it was possible to change it back via configuration options.
> In Unity, it was absolutely impossible.


Try Lubuntu, with LXDE.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:21:06 -0700 Maxim Wexler <maxim.wexler@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
> > in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
> > *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
> > frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.
> >
> > There was not any possibility to change the place of the closing
> > window frame button in Unity via configuration options. Quite a
> > lot of Ubuntu users complained about it yet in Ubuntu 10.04,
> > where the new place of that button was a new default though
> > it was possible to change it back via configuration options.
> > In Unity, it was absolutely impossible.
> 
> 
> Try Lubuntu, with LXDE.

Thank you, but I have already tried Gentoo with xfce4. :)

P.S. Actually, I have tried Lubuntu in my VirtualBox on Gentoo
     and did not liked it. May be Xubuntu would be a decent choice
     if I would like to return to pre-compiled commercial distribution
     but I much more like Gentoo with xfce4 now.

[gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Grant Edwards]

On 2014-11-25, Maxim Wexler <maxim.wexler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
>> in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
>> *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
>> frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.
>>
>> There was not any possibility to change the place of the closing
>> window frame button in Unity via configuration options. Quite a
>> lot of Ubuntu users complained about it yet in Ubuntu 10.04,
>> where the new place of that button was a new default though
>> it was possible to change it back via configuration options.
>> In Unity, it was absolutely impossible.
>
> Try Lubuntu, with LXDE.

Or Xubuntu with XFCE.

I prefer Gentoo over Ubuntu for a host of other reasons, but switching
from Ubuntu to Gentoo just to get a different desktop seems like
overkill.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Psychoanalysis??
                                  at               I thought this was a nude
                              gmail.com            rap session!!!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2014-11-25, Maxim Wexler <maxim.wexler@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
> >> in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
> >> *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
> >> frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.
> >>
> >> There was not any possibility to change the place of the closing
> >> window frame button in Unity via configuration options. Quite a
> >> lot of Ubuntu users complained about it yet in Ubuntu 10.04,
> >> where the new place of that button was a new default though
> >> it was possible to change it back via configuration options.
> >> In Unity, it was absolutely impossible.
> >
> > Try Lubuntu, with LXDE.
> 
> Or Xubuntu with XFCE.
> 
> I prefer Gentoo over Ubuntu for a host of other reasons, but switching
> from Ubuntu to Gentoo just to get a different desktop seems like
> overkill.

Strange enough but according to the information from the DistroWatch.com
Ubuntu lost a lot of users and its status of the most popular Linux
distribution after switching from Gnome2 to Unity in its 12.04 LTS release.

And its not about a small change in an interface, it is about
we-know-better-what-you-need approach that drove quite a lot
of companies to bankrupcy. Kodak is a perfect example. Its
employee invented the very first digital camera in the world
but Kodak refused to continue its development and put it to mass
production because its managers decided that their customers
need only film cameras.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tom H]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:


>> I prefer Gentoo over Ubuntu for a host of other reasons, but switching
>> from Ubuntu to Gentoo just to get a different desktop seems like
>> overkill.
>
> Strange enough but according to the information from the DistroWatch.com
> Ubuntu lost a lot of users and its status of the most popular Linux
> distribution after switching from Gnome2 to Unity in its 12.04 LTS release.

It's easy for Distrowatch to claim something that's unprovable.


> And its not about a small change in an interface, it is about
> we-know-better-what-you-need approach that drove quite a lot
> of companies to bankrupcy.

The rationale at the time was that they wanted to use the right side
of the window bar "for an unspecified "something else." So they didn't
provide an integrated guified way to move the windows controls back to
the right; but gconf-editor was always an apt-get away.

There's still nothing there so they've either changed their minds,
were BSing us and simply wanted to imitate OS X, or were BSing us and
simply wanted to differentiate Unity from Gnome.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I prefer Gentoo over Ubuntu for a host of other reasons, but switching
>>> from Ubuntu to Gentoo just to get a different desktop seems like
>>> overkill.
>>
>> Strange enough but according to the information from the DistroWatch.com
>> Ubuntu lost a lot of users and its status of the most popular Linux
>> distribution after switching from Gnome2 to Unity in its 12.04 LTS release.
>
> It's easy for Distrowatch to claim something that's unprovable.
>

Yeah, you won't find too much Distrowatch love around here.  :)

Their metrics are dubious at best.  They don't count Gentoo users who
don't visit the distrowatch website, and they probably don't count
most of the Gentoo users who DO visit the distrowatch website since we
tend to follow upstream and don't whore for metrics in all of our
user_agent strings or for ad dollars in our default search engines.
This actually has involved turning down money in the past.

--
Rich

[gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Grant Edwards]

On 2014-11-26, Gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-11-25, Maxim Wexler <maxim.wexler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
>> >> in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
>> >> *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
>> >> frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.
>> >>
>> >> There was not any possibility to change the place of the closing
>> >> window frame button in Unity via configuration options. Quite a
>> >> lot of Ubuntu users complained about it yet in Ubuntu 10.04,
>> >> where the new place of that button was a new default though
>> >> it was possible to change it back via configuration options.
>> >> In Unity, it was absolutely impossible.
>> >
>> > Try Lubuntu, with LXDE.
>> 
>> Or Xubuntu with XFCE.
>> 
>> I prefer Gentoo over Ubuntu for a host of other reasons, but switching
>> from Ubuntu to Gentoo just to get a different desktop seems like
>> overkill.
>
> Strange enough but according to the information from the
> DistroWatch.com Ubuntu lost a lot of users and its status of the most
> popular Linux distribution after switching from Gnome2 to Unity in
> its 12.04 LTS release.
>
> And its not about a small change in an interface, it is about
> we-know-better-what-you-need approach that drove quite a lot of
> companies to bankrupcy.

That's one of the big reasons I do prefer Gentoo.  Ubuntu is great as
long as you want to do everything the "Ubuntu Way".  The minute you
want to do something slightly different, it turns into a long hard
swim upstream.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I love ROCK 'N ROLL!
                                  at               I memorized the all WORDS
                              gmail.com            to "WIPE-OUT" in 1965!!

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tom H]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:05:16 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:25:22 +0200, Gevisz wrote:
>>>
>>> I switched from Ubuntu 10.04 to Gentoo just because it forced closing
>>> window button "x" to the upper-left corner of the window in Unity of
>>> Ubuntu 12.04 while I used to look for it in the upper-right corner. :)
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to use the simple configuration option to
>> move the button back to where you expected it? Far less effort than
>> switching distros.
>
> No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
> in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
> *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
> frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.

It was possible with gconf-editor.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:53:14 +0200 Gevisz <gevisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:05:16 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:25:22 +0200, Gevisz wrote:
> > 
> > > I switched from Ubuntu 10.04 to Gentoo just because it forced closing
> > > window button "x" to the upper-left corner of the window in Unity of
> > > Ubuntu 12.04 while I used to look for it in the upper-right corner. :)
> > 
> > Wouldn't it have been easier to use the simple configuration option to
> > move the button back to where you expected it? Far less effort than
> > switching distros.
> 
> No. It is not possible in Unity or, at least, it was not possible
> in Unity at the time when Ubuntu 12.04 was released. They really
> *forced* their users to accept the new place of the closing window
> frame button and have argued that it is more ergonomic.
> 
> There was not any possibility to change the place of the closing
> window frame button in Unity via configuration options. Quite a
> lot of Ubuntu users complained about it yet in Ubuntu 10.04,
> where the new place of that button was a new default though
> it was possible to change it back via configuration options.
> In Unity, it was absolutely impossible.
> 
> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was
> logical, ergonomic and saved screen space.

Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible
to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that
it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept
the window frame close button at its usual place, but
it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway.
 
> It is *forcing* old users to change their habits just after upgrade
> from Ubuntu 10.04 LST to Ubuntu 12.04 LST make me looking for an
> alternative distribution. And it was the first time when I carefully
> looked though all the alternatives and make my choice consciously.
> (Before that my choice was mainly influenced by the people who
> helped me to install and maintain my first Linux systems: Suse
> at the time when it was still free :), Red Hat :(, or just advised
> me to try them: Alt Linux, Ubuntu.)
> 
> I think that I made the right choice now and I like Gentoo
> distribution, though it has its own shortcomings.
> 
> For example, Firefox 24.8.0 in stable Gentoo tree when outdated
> Ubuntu 12.04 has Firefox 33.0. (It is not that I am running for
> the version numbers but Google sites do not support Firefox 24.8
> any more.)  
>   
> 

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Alan McKinnon]

On 25/11/2014 09:15, Gevisz wrote:
>> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was
>> > logical, ergonomic and saved screen space.
> Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible
> to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that
> it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept
> the window frame close button at its usual place, but
> it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway.
>  


This is incorrect.

Unity has always been able to reposition the window control buttons,
right from the first release.

Perhaps you just didn't know how or where to change it.
Doesn't mean it was not possible to change it.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 25 November 2014 11:45:50 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 25/11/2014 09:15, Gevisz wrote:
> >> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was
> >> 
> >> > logical, ergonomic and saved screen space.
> > 
> > Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible
> > to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that
> > it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept
> > the window frame close button at its usual place, but
> > it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway.
> 
> This is incorrect.

Sorry Alan, but it isn't. Read what you quote again. He said "only now, I have 
realised that ..."

> Unity has always been able to reposition the window control buttons,
> right from the first release.
> 
> Perhaps you just didn't know how or where to change it.
> Doesn't mean it was not possible to change it.

As above.

:-)

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:45:50 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/11/2014 09:15, Gevisz wrote:
> >> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was
> >> > logical, ergonomic and saved screen space.
> > Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible
> > to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that
> > it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept
> > the window frame close button at its usual place, but
> > it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway. 
> 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> Unity has always been able to reposition the window control
> buttons, right from the first release.

I still have Ubuntu 12.04 (with Unity) on one of my partitions
(but never use it for more that 5 minutes from the startup to
shutdown, anyway :).

So, I can check if your statement is true. Just tell me
how to reposition the window control buttons in Unity.

I promise to report the result of this test here.

Back in 2012, after trying to find how to do it, I looked into
Ubuntu forum and found out that many users complained about it
and always got the answer that it is impossible and that Ubuntu
developers know better what the users need than the users itself.

But even if you prove to be right (which I very much doubt),
for me it turned out easier to find out how to install and
maintain Gentoo (with gnome2, dwm and xfce4) than to find
out how to reposition the window control buttons in Unity.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Alan McKinnon]

On 25/11/2014 19:03, Gevisz wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:45:50 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 25/11/2014 09:15, Gevisz wrote:
>>>> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was
>>>>> logical, ergonomic and saved screen space.
>>> Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible
>>> to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that
>>> it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept
>>> the window frame close button at its usual place, but
>>> it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway. 
>>
>> This is incorrect.
>>
>> Unity has always been able to reposition the window control
>> buttons, right from the first release.
> 
> I still have Ubuntu 12.04 (with Unity) on one of my partitions
> (but never use it for more that 5 minutes from the startup to
> shutdown, anyway :).
> 
> So, I can check if your statement is true. Just tell me
> how to reposition the window control buttons in Unity.



I have no idea dude. That was 2 1/2 years ago and I'm a Gentoo user so
have zero interest in Ubuntu's Unity.

Google knows the answer, you just have to ask the right questions. I did
it then on a netbook that long since moved over to Mint then Bodhi and
Google showed me the way.

I don't know the answer to your question.

> 
> I promise to report the result of this test here.
> 
> Back in 2012, after trying to find how to do it, I looked into
> Ubuntu forum and found out that many users complained about it
> and always got the answer that it is impossible and that Ubuntu
> developers know better what the users need than the users itself.
> 
> But even if you prove to be right (which I very much doubt),
> for me it turned out easier to find out how to install and
> maintain Gentoo (with gnome2, dwm and xfce4) than to find
> out how to reposition the window control buttons in Unity.
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Gevisz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 21:56:05 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/11/2014 19:03, Gevisz wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:45:50 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 25/11/2014 09:15, Gevisz wrote:
> >>>> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was
> >>>>> logical, ergonomic and saved screen space.
> >>> Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible
> >>> to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that
> >>> it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept
> >>> the window frame close button at its usual place, but
> >>> it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway. 
> >>
> >> This is incorrect.
> >>
> >> Unity has always been able to reposition the window control
> >> buttons, right from the first release.
> > 
> > I still have Ubuntu 12.04 (with Unity) on one of my partitions
> > (but never use it for more that 5 minutes from the startup to
> > shutdown, anyway :).
> > 
> > So, I can check if your statement is true. Just tell me
> > how to reposition the window control buttons in Unity.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea dude. That was 2 1/2 years ago and I'm a Gentoo user so
> have zero interest in Ubuntu's Unity.
> 
> Google knows the answer, you just have to ask the right questions. I did
> it then on a netbook that long since moved over to Mint then Bodhi and
> Google showed me the way.
> 
> I don't know the answer to your question.

The sad truth is that nobody knows that.

This question on askUbuntu has been unanswered for about a year now, 604 views.

http://askubuntu.com/questions/228854/how-to-move-window-control-buttons-to-unity-panel 


See also:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-tweak-tool/+bug/1310056

Here is some quotes:

    mikolajek (mikorutko) wrote on 2014-09-03:

    It looks like the bug is still present.
    I've just installed a fresh 14.04 copy
    together with Unity Tweak Tool 0.0.6
    and even though I select "right" for
    my window controls, they are not moved
    there. After I re-open window properties
    the setting is reverted back to default (Left).

    Iron Davey wrote on 2014-09-04:

    Confirmed as well with an upgrade to 14.04.1.
    This is truly annoying as I use Crossover to
    run many windows applications needed for work, and
    those apps all have the window controls on the right.

    J Phani Mahesh (phanimahesh) wrote on 2014-09-05: 	#14

    Hello guys, Sorry, but *this can't be fixed*.

    Ubuntu decided to change the window titlebar behaviour
    in 14.04. So far, i have been unable to find any
    alternative way to change window decoration. I am
    of the opinion it isn't possible.

    If you think it is possible, and are able to successfully
    change the controls in 14.04 and up using any available
    tool/command or any tweak whatsoever, let me know how
    you did it, and I'll figure out a way to do it from UTT again.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Emanuele Rusconi]

On 24 November 2014 at 18:54, Marc Stürmer <mail@marc-stuermer.de> wrote:
>
> I don't think so, that many people are going to switch to Gentoo just
> because of Systemd, because of the differences between Gentoo and e.g.
> Debian.


I did. From Debian. Not because I hate systemd (NOW I'm in the "anti"
camp, but I switched before I could have an opinion, and to be honest I
didn't try systemd yet), but because I wanted a working alternative on
my laptop before making the jump, and now that my Gentoo (Funtoo,
actually) is clicking fine, I just don't feel the urge to go back to
Debian.

-- Emanuele Rusconi

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tom H]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> Adoption of Systemd by other major distros sb good for Gentoo.
> Disgruntled Debians, Fedoras, Archies (IIRC they've also adopted it)
> will have a choice of giving in or moving to Slackware or Gentoo.
> Many of them may decide the moderate amount of extra work with Gentoo
> is well worth the freedom to use a more traditional init system
> & as serious programmers, many wb able to offer help to Gentoo development.

I wouldn't bet to much on that. One of the most vocal anti-systemd
Debian users tried either Gento or Funtoo and reported that
installation and maintenance were difficult. Binary distros do make
things rather easier, especially if you start to play with USE flags
on a source distro.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Stuermer]

Am 27.11.2014 um 12:00 schrieb Tom H:

> I wouldn't bet to much on that. One of the most vocal anti-systemd
> Debian users tried either Gento or Funtoo and reported that
> installation and maintenance were difficult. Binary distros do make
> things rather easier, especially if you start to play with USE flags
> on a source distro.

Of course they did. Installing Debian or let's say Ubuntu or Linux Mint
is a nobrainer, a streamlined, fast quick and convenient experience,
even on most legacy hardware you're done under one hour.

Installing Gentoo forces you to think about stuff and know stuff you
don't need to know when e.g. using Ubuntu.

The Gentoo way equivalent to such distributions is Sabayon: comes with a
fully fledged installer (the same like Fedora btw), precompiled binaries
and installing doesn't take long.

Gentoo is more likely your thing if you want to master your hardware or
have quite much knowledge about it. The rest uses other stuff.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Marc Stuermer <mail@marc-stuermer.de> wrote:
> Am 27.11.2014 um 12:00 schrieb Tom H:
>
>> I wouldn't bet to much on that. One of the most vocal anti-systemd
>> Debian users tried either Gento or Funtoo and reported that
>> installation and maintenance were difficult. Binary distros do make
>> things rather easier, especially if you start to play with USE flags
>> on a source distro.
>
> Of course they did. Installing Debian or let's say Ubuntu or Linux Mint
> is a nobrainer, a streamlined, fast quick and convenient experience,
> even on most legacy hardware you're done under one hour.
>
> Installing Gentoo forces you to think about stuff and know stuff you
> don't need to know when e.g. using Ubuntu.
>
> The Gentoo way equivalent to such distributions is Sabayon: comes with a
> fully fledged installer (the same like Fedora btw), precompiled binaries
> and installing doesn't take long.

And Sabayon uses systemd, of course.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 27.11.2014 um 16:22 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:

> And Sabayon uses systemd, of course.

Holy moly... never noticed that this happened.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Marc Stürmer <mail@marc-stuermer.de> wrote:
> Am 27.11.2014 um 16:22 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>
>> And Sabayon uses systemd, of course.
>
> Holy moly... never noticed that this happened.

Sabayon started rolling systemd in April 15, 2013[1]. By Sabayon
14.01, it was the default init[2]. They are in the process of dropping
out support for OpenRC entirely [3].

It sounds really cool Sabayon, I should probably try it one of these days.

Regards.

[1] http://lxnay.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/rolling-out-systemd/
[2] http://www.sabayon.org/release/press-release-oh-oh-oh-sabayon-1401
[3] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+FabioErculiani/posts/1oLt6mT9r7r
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Paige Thompson]

so we pretty much established that dropping openrc isn't in the plans
for gentoo right? Probably gonna be an option like bootloaders right?

On 11/27/14 21:46, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Marc Stürmer <mail@marc-stuermer.de> wrote:
>> Am 27.11.2014 um 16:22 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>
>>> And Sabayon uses systemd, of course.
>> Holy moly... never noticed that this happened.
> Sabayon started rolling systemd in April 15, 2013[1]. By Sabayon
> 14.01, it was the default init[2]. They are in the process of dropping
> out support for OpenRC entirely [3].
>
> It sounds really cool Sabayon, I should probably try it one of these days.
>
> Regards.
>
> [1] http://lxnay.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/rolling-out-systemd/
> [2] http://www.sabayon.org/release/press-release-oh-oh-oh-sabayon-1401
> [3] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+FabioErculiani/posts/1oLt6mT9r7r

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Paige Thompson]

I think im just going to go to sleep. I really don't care if they drop
support for it I'll just make my own ebuild / systemd emulation for
whatever I need in spite of it, fork it and call it "you can have it
when you pry it from my cold dead hands linux."

good night

-Paige

On 11/27/14 22:56, Paige Thompson wrote:
> so we pretty much established that dropping openrc isn't in the plans
> for gentoo right? Probably gonna be an option like bootloaders right?
>
> On 11/27/14 21:46, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Marc Stürmer <mail@marc-stuermer.de> wrote:
>>> Am 27.11.2014 um 16:22 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés:
>>>
>>>> And Sabayon uses systemd, of course.
>>> Holy moly... never noticed that this happened.
>> Sabayon started rolling systemd in April 15, 2013[1]. By Sabayon
>> 14.01, it was the default init[2]. They are in the process of dropping
>> out support for OpenRC entirely [3].
>>
>> It sounds really cool Sabayon, I should probably try it one of these days.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> [1] http://lxnay.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/rolling-out-systemd/
>> [2] http://www.sabayon.org/release/press-release-oh-oh-oh-sabayon-1401
>> [3] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+FabioErculiani/posts/1oLt6mT9r7r
>

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Paige Thompson <erratic@yourstruly.sx> wrote:
> I think im just going to go to sleep. I really don't care if they drop
> support for it I'll just make my own ebuild / systemd emulation for
> whatever I need in spite of it, fork it and call it "you can have it
> when you pry it from my cold dead hands linux."

Please don't top-post.

That's the spirit. As long as you are willing to do the necessary
work, no one can ever force you to use any software.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Paige Thompson]

On 11/28/14 01:13, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Paige Thompson <erratic@yourstruly.sx> wrote:
>> I think im just going to go to sleep. I really don't care if they drop
>> support for it I'll just make my own ebuild / systemd emulation for
>> whatever I need in spite of it, fork it and call it "you can have it
>> when you pry it from my cold dead hands linux."
> Please don't top-post.
>
> That's the spirit. As long as you are willing to do the necessary
> work, no one can ever force you to use any software.
>
> Regards.
Sorry I wish Thunderbird would start my cursor at the bottom of the
e-mail like its supposed to and I forget sometimes.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 931 bytes --]

On Friday 28 Nov 2014 19:03:45 Paige Thompson wrote:
> On 11/28/14 01:13, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Paige Thompson <erratic@yourstruly.sx> 
wrote:
> >> I think im just going to go to sleep. I really don't care if they drop
> >> support for it I'll just make my own ebuild / systemd emulation for
> >> whatever I need in spite of it, fork it and call it "you can have it
> >> when you pry it from my cold dead hands linux."
> > 
> > Please don't top-post.
> > 
> > That's the spirit. As long as you are willing to do the necessary
> > work, no one can ever force you to use any software.
> > 
> > Regards.
> 
> Sorry I wish Thunderbird would start my cursor at the bottom of the
> e-mail like its supposed to and I forget sometimes.

I'm convinced that there is a setting somewhere in its preferences to allow 
you to do just that - automatically.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 11/28/2014 02:03 PM, Paige Thompson wrote:
> Sorry I wish Thunderbird would start my cursor at the bottom of the
> e-mail like its supposed to and I forget sometimes.
> 
> 

Edit -> Account Settings -> Composition and Addressing

Check the thing to quote replies, and select "start my reply below..."

[gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:46:06PM -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> It sounds really cool Sabayon, I should probably try it one of these days.

I'd say it's my favorite distro.  Sadly, equo still doesn't know how to
"depclean".

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Paige Thompson]

On 11/21/14 07:32, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Paige Thompson <erratic@yourstruly.sx> wrote:
>> I just read an article that says systemd is taking over linux and linux
>> is not linux anymore:
>> http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/
> I highly recommend the article John Corbet wrote for LWN a week ago:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/
>
> TL;DR, the sky is not falling, let's see how systemd evolves and
> succeds, fails, or it's replaced.
>
>> I kinda have to agree which is partially why I'm not using it. Will
>> Gentoo have any plans of forcing its users to move to systemd or will I
>> always (such as its always roughly been) have the option of using init
>> and openrc as it is now?
> As long as there are developers willing and able to support OpenRC in
> Gentoo (and it looks like there are), that will be the case. To make
> sure that this remains to be true, help them.
>
>  I personally have no reasons currently to
>> switch from one to the other. It seems like it might be a great thing if
>> you have linux containers.
> It's actually a great thing for a lot of use cases. But it doesn't
> seem that Gentoo will change defaults soon, although systemd works
> great with it.
>
> Regards.
Great article, I should merely point out it's ridiculous that people get
so bent out of shape over computer software. It contrasted the
transition of devfs to udev well which I can relate to and thought of in
my previous response. I was trying to explain I don't really know enough
about either systemd or openrc to say whether or not support for one or
the other will ever be dropped.

My deal is I have everything I want setup, it works and I want to leave
it that way. I deal with security problems and updates proactively and
on a case-by-case and as-per-needed basis. I'm not looking forward to
migrating to systemd if I don't need to but I will if that's what it
takes to get back to my real work with the peace of mind that I can
still install new software if I choose to and actually be able to use it.
 

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Joliet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1317 bytes --]

Am Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:32:16 -0600
schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com>:

[...]
> I highly recommend the article John Corbet wrote for LWN a week ago:
> 
> http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/
[...]

Thanks for the link, it was a good read.

FWIW, I found this linked in one of the comments:

    http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/

Both articles echo thoughts that I have more and more with every "discussion"
regarding systemd.

My takeaway is similar to that of the lwn.net article (that is, both sides are
being unnecessarily thick-headed), and find it remarkable how much I recognise
from "discussions" here on gentoo-user (in contrast, gentoo-amd64 has been much
more level-headed).  However, I disagree with with the categorisation at the
end, mainly because I hate it when people have to sort each other into "camps",
so that they know who to hate and who to like (which isn't the author's fault,
I think, politicised discussions tend to go that way as they intensify), but
also because I think it is too strict and doesn't account for overlap (for
myself I see reasons for both being and not being in either group).

Greetings
-- 
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Sid S]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4638 bytes --]

The reason this question is so hard to answer is because it is not a
technical question, it is a moral and ethical one. The links presented
start to approach the issue being discussed in this light but do not
entirely accept the right question. I suspect this is because it seems
rather absurd.

We shall analyze some popular responses in this light.

Systemd is easy to work around!
http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html
except,
https://lobste.rs/s/y5skqt/avoiding_systemd_isn_t_hard/comments/eayjn3#c_eayjn3
but http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html gives some
decent counterpoints,
which http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/ either supports or is ambivalent
about.

They all basically boil down to "someone is doing the work, and if it is a
better way to do it it will be okay." Except this isn't true. The proof by
contradiction is exceptionally simple:

If this was a just world, Lennart's pants would be on fire.
Lennart's pants are not on fire.
Therefore, this is not a just world, and justice must be manufactured.

You might ask why his pants (and the pants of most systemd supporters)
would be on fire. Well,
https://pappp.net/?p=969 clearly explains how FLOS is not UNIX, and
the easy counterpoints get thoroughly trashed
http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/, and
http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/ here's a guy agreeing
and suggesting everyone hit the big red EJECT.

Why UNIX? Well, because that's just a concise, easy-to-phrase proxy for the
deeper issue of
https://pay.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2k5b7e/the_concern_isnt_that_systemd_itself_isnt/
(aside: read the C++ in the kernel tangent if you are not familiar, it
seems to mirror this argument taking place and notably, Linus has chosen a
side on that one!)
which is echoed here http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/
and here http://lwn.net/Articles/576078/
and here http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ (start with
unix philosophy)
and here http://lwn.net/Articles/494605/.

Once upon a time I met a very masterful troll who got me to say precisely
what I needed to say precisely when I did not want to say it. What he got
me to say was:
>Oct 27 06:05:30 <*******>    I study the orthodoxy consistently[sic]
>Oct 27 06:05:38 <R0b0t1`>    To find its flaws, yes

So did Lennart &co. study the orthodox to learn from its failures? Did they
construct a conservative (re)implementation of the software exhibiting
those failures? It has been shown and continues to be shown that: no, they
are flying by the seat of their pants. A solution could have been
constructed which requires far less labor. Not only far less of *their*
labor, but far less labor for *everyone else* using a *nix. But they did
not thoroughly investigate such avenues, even within their
reimplementation! They are recreating bugs! It is impossible for them to
claim they are doing it over to do it right, as they have already failed at
that purpose.

They have been shown to have wasted effort and continue to do so. When
labor is scarce, that is the most unethical action one can undertake.


On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Marc Joliet <marcec@gmx.de> wrote:

> Am Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:32:16 -0600
> schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com>:
>
> [...]
> > I highly recommend the article John Corbet wrote for LWN a week ago:
> >
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/
> [...]
>
> Thanks for the link, it was a good read.
>
> FWIW, I found this linked in one of the comments:
>
>     http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
>
> Both articles echo thoughts that I have more and more with every
> "discussion"
> regarding systemd.
>
> My takeaway is similar to that of the lwn.net article (that is, both
> sides are
> being unnecessarily thick-headed), and find it remarkable how much I
> recognise
> from "discussions" here on gentoo-user (in contrast, gentoo-amd64 has been
> much
> more level-headed).  However, I disagree with with the categorisation at
> the
> end, mainly because I hate it when people have to sort each other into
> "camps",
> so that they know who to hate and who to like (which isn't the author's
> fault,
> I think, politicised discussions tend to go that way as they intensify),
> but
> also because I think it is too strict and doesn't account for overlap (for
> myself I see reasons for both being and not being in either group).
>
> Greetings
> --
> Marc Joliet
> --
> "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
> don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6535 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Sid S]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5093 bytes --]

Regardless, it would probably be useful to contact the people from the
Debian project who were interested in forking it. It's likely Gentoo would
end up using a fair amount of their work at some point.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Sid S <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:

> The reason this question is so hard to answer is because it is not a
> technical question, it is a moral and ethical one. The links presented
> start to approach the issue being discussed in this light but do not
> entirely accept the right question. I suspect this is because it seems
> rather absurd.
>
> We shall analyze some popular responses in this light.
>
> Systemd is easy to work around!
> http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html
> except,
> https://lobste.rs/s/y5skqt/avoiding_systemd_isn_t_hard/comments/eayjn3#c_eayjn3
> but http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html gives some
> decent counterpoints,
> which http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/ either supports or is ambivalent
> about.
>
> They all basically boil down to "someone is doing the work, and if it is a
> better way to do it it will be okay." Except this isn't true. The proof by
> contradiction is exceptionally simple:
>
> If this was a just world, Lennart's pants would be on fire.
> Lennart's pants are not on fire.
> Therefore, this is not a just world, and justice must be manufactured.
>
> You might ask why his pants (and the pants of most systemd supporters)
> would be on fire. Well,
> https://pappp.net/?p=969 clearly explains how FLOS is not UNIX, and
> the easy counterpoints get thoroughly trashed
> http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/, and
> http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/ here's a guy
> agreeing and suggesting everyone hit the big red EJECT.
>
> Why UNIX? Well, because that's just a concise, easy-to-phrase proxy for
> the deeper issue of
>
> https://pay.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2k5b7e/the_concern_isnt_that_systemd_itself_isnt/
> (aside: read the C++ in the kernel tangent if you are not familiar, it
> seems to mirror this argument taking place and notably, Linus has chosen a
> side on that one!)
> which is echoed here http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/
> and here http://lwn.net/Articles/576078/
> and here http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ (start with
> unix philosophy)
> and here http://lwn.net/Articles/494605/.
>
> Once upon a time I met a very masterful troll who got me to say precisely
> what I needed to say precisely when I did not want to say it. What he got
> me to say was:
> >Oct 27 06:05:30 <*******>    I study the orthodoxy consistently[sic]
> >Oct 27 06:05:38 <R0b0t1`>    To find its flaws, yes
>
> So did Lennart &co. study the orthodox to learn from its failures? Did
> they construct a conservative (re)implementation of the software exhibiting
> those failures? It has been shown and continues to be shown that: no, they
> are flying by the seat of their pants. A solution could have been
> constructed which requires far less labor. Not only far less of *their*
> labor, but far less labor for *everyone else* using a *nix. But they did
> not thoroughly investigate such avenues, even within their
> reimplementation! They are recreating bugs! It is impossible for them to
> claim they are doing it over to do it right, as they have already failed at
> that purpose.
>
> They have been shown to have wasted effort and continue to do so. When
> labor is scarce, that is the most unethical action one can undertake.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Marc Joliet <marcec@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:32:16 -0600
>> schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com>:
>>
>> [...]
>> > I highly recommend the article John Corbet wrote for LWN a week ago:
>> >
>> > http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/
>> [...]
>>
>> Thanks for the link, it was a good read.
>>
>> FWIW, I found this linked in one of the comments:
>>
>>     http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
>>
>> Both articles echo thoughts that I have more and more with every
>> "discussion"
>> regarding systemd.
>>
>> My takeaway is similar to that of the lwn.net article (that is, both
>> sides are
>> being unnecessarily thick-headed), and find it remarkable how much I
>> recognise
>> from "discussions" here on gentoo-user (in contrast, gentoo-amd64 has
>> been much
>> more level-headed).  However, I disagree with with the categorisation at
>> the
>> end, mainly because I hate it when people have to sort each other into
>> "camps",
>> so that they know who to hate and who to like (which isn't the author's
>> fault,
>> I think, politicised discussions tend to go that way as they intensify),
>> but
>> also because I think it is too strict and doesn't account for overlap (for
>> myself I see reasons for both being and not being in either group).
>>
>> Greetings
>> --
>> Marc Joliet
>> --
>> "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know
>> we
>> don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7335 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/21/2014 2:32 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> As long as there are developers willing and able to support OpenRC in
> Gentoo (and it looks like there are), that will be the case. To make
> sure that this remains to be true, help them.

This is really an incorrect (and even borderline arrogant) answer...

To answer the OPs question correctly...

Since OpenRC is the *default* - for now at least - it is *king*, and
systemd is the red-headed step-child, and as such OpenRC is and will be
100% fully supported.

With that in mind, it is also 100% on the *systemd proponents* to make
sure that *systemd* is 'fully supported' as an *alternate* init system.

Side-note, unless the nature of systemd changes quite a bit for the
better in the future, if its supporters are ever able to force a change
to it as the default init in gentoo, that will be the day I switch to
FreeBSD.

[gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:44:12PM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:

> This is really an incorrect (and even borderline arrogant) answer...
> 
> To answer the OPs question correctly...
> 
> Since OpenRC is the *default* - for now at least - it is *king*, and
> systemd is the red-headed step-child, and as such OpenRC is and will be
> 100% fully supported.
> 
> With that in mind, it is also 100% on the *systemd proponents* to make
> sure that *systemd* is 'fully supported' as an *alternate* init system.

You're wrong. At first, Gentoo does with what software maintainers
offer. 

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/23/2014 1:00 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:44:12PM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Since OpenRC is the *default* - for now at least - it is *king*, and
>> systemd is the red-headed step-child, and as such OpenRC is and will be
>> 100% fully supported.
>>
>> With that in mind, it is also 100% on the *systemd proponents* to make
>> sure that *systemd* is 'fully supported' as an *alternate* init system.
> 
> You're wrong.

Really? OpenRC isn't the default init system for Gentoo? Prove it...

> At first, Gentoo does with what software maintainers offer. 

Irrelevant. Since OpenRC is the default init system, any package that
doesn't work properly with it would, by definition, be a bug that must
be fixed - if the maintainer wants their package to be marked as
stable/usable by 99.99% of gentoo users.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>
> Irrelevant. Since OpenRC is the default init system, any package that
> doesn't work properly with it would, by definition, be a bug that must
> be fixed - if the maintainer wants their package to be marked as
> stable/usable by 99.99% of gentoo users.
>

Packages do not need to support openrc to be marked as stable.

Also, very few bugs "must be fixed."  It is perfectly acceptable for a
package to be in the tree and not have an init.d script.  Really the
only kinds of bugs that require fixing are ones that deal with minimal
QA standards and most of those pertain to security.

Sure, OpenRC is supported in the same sense that SystemD is supported
- if you have a problem you can post on the forums or mailing lists
and you might or might not get an answer to your questions.

If you want real support, call up Canonical, Redhat, Suse, or Oracle
(or any of the other commercial vendors).

The current Gentoo policy is that maintainers cannot block other devs
from adding support for systemd/openrc/etc to their packages if they
lack such support.  Gentoo policy does NOT require maintainers to
support any particular init system.

If you feel otherwise, I suggest you cite the policy.

Frankly the last thing we need with this whole debate is folks drawing
lines in the sand.  I happily support both systemd and openrc in the
packages I maintain, and if somebody wanted to contribute a runit
script and test it, I'd be happy to commit this as well.  I don't run
eudev but if the eudev team offered a patch to make things work better
with their config I'd be happy to accept it as long as they
maintain/test it.

Some devs take this stuff too personally and for a while we had devs
threatening revert wars to try to ensure that certain configurations
they disagreed with wouldn't work well.  The current policy forbids
that kind of behavior (which was the sort of thing everybody is
complaining about in this thread).  Maintainers don't get to use their
packages as soapboxes to push their agendas.  However, maintainers
also aren't required to put in effort to support configurations they
don't use.  Live and let live.

If people want a distro that enforced doctrinal purity, I suggest you
go over to the FSF website and run whatever blob-free distro with
0.01% market share they're endorsing at the moment.  Gentoo has always
been pragmatic.  Nobody promises support for anything, but you'll find
that in practice a LOT more oddball configurations are "supported" by
Gentoo than your average distro.

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/23/2014 2:24 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The current Gentoo policy is that maintainers cannot block other devs
> from adding support for systemd/openrc/etc to their packages if they
> lack such support.  Gentoo policy does NOT require maintainers to
> support any particular init system.
> 
> If you feel otherwise, I suggest you cite the policy.

Interesting... packages don't have to support the default init system...

Can anyone say 'can of worms'?

Oh well, its never been a problem for me, so I doubt it ever will be, at
least for the foreseeable future.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:25:07 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:

> > The current Gentoo policy is that maintainers cannot block other devs
> > from adding support for systemd/openrc/etc to their packages if they
> > lack such support.  Gentoo policy does NOT require maintainers to
> > support any particular init system.
> > 
> > If you feel otherwise, I suggest you cite the policy.  
> 
> Interesting... packages don't have to support the default init system...
> 
> Can anyone say 'can of worms'?

Well, if it goes the way Rich suggests, there won't be a default init
system so this won't be an issue.

Gentoo is about choice, defaults are there for when you can't be bothered
to make the choice yourself, which makes defaults largely irrelevant in
the Gentoo way of doing things.

And if the default init system does become virtual/init, will you care or
even notice? It was only when installing a new system recently that I saw
that the default for virtual/cron was no longer vixie-cron, yet none of
my systems using vixie stopped working...

The choice will always be there as long as at least one person cares
enough to ensure the choice is there. 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

To most people solutions mean finding the answers.  But to chemists
solutions are things that are still all mixed up.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:25:07 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> > > The current Gentoo policy is that maintainers cannot block other devs
> > > from adding support for systemd/openrc/etc to their packages if they
> > > lack such support.  Gentoo policy does NOT require maintainers to
> > > support any particular init system.
> > >
> > > If you feel otherwise, I suggest you cite the policy.
> >
> > Interesting... packages don't have to support the default init system...
> >
> > Can anyone say 'can of worms'?
>
> Well, if it goes the way Rich suggests, there won't be a default init
> system so this won't be an issue.
>
> Gentoo is about choice, defaults are there for when you can't be bothered
> to make the choice yourself, which makes defaults largely irrelevant in
> the Gentoo way of doing things.
>
> And if the default init system does become virtual/init, will you care or
> even notice? It was only when installing a new system recently that I saw
> that the default for virtual/cron was no longer vixie-cron, yet none of
> my systems using vixie stopped working...
>
> The choice will always be there as long as at least one person cares
> enough to ensure the choice is there.

Choice can be for components that are optional or drop-in-replacements.
It like you have expected that alternate gcc or libc will be a
*STABLE* choice, while developers a not using these "choices".
Systemd is not drop-in-replacement for init.d, and if developers
(except gnome) are not using it, then this choice is stable for gnome
users but no more than that, thus marking it as stable in the global
profile was at least "strange", also not having USE flag for openrc
and systemd was at least "strange", pushing users files and components
they do not use nor require.

As written before, Gentoo seems the only refuge from the systemd
ecosystem take over, once it is taken, it will be good time to move to
FreeBSD. People should had have -systemd USE to make sure they are not
using this ecosystem, this is one of the loses we had.

Alon

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Alan McKinnon]

On 23/11/2014 22:25, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 2:24 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> The current Gentoo policy is that maintainers cannot block other devs
>> from adding support for systemd/openrc/etc to their packages if they
>> lack such support.  Gentoo policy does NOT require maintainers to
>> support any particular init system.
>>
>> If you feel otherwise, I suggest you cite the policy.
> 
> Interesting... packages don't have to support the default init system...

You are inventing concepts that do not exist.

There is no such thing as the "default init system".

There is only the one that portage will happen to install should you not
specify a preference.



> 
> Can anyone say 'can of worms'?
> 
> Oh well, its never been a problem for me, so I doubt it ever will be, at
> least for the foreseeable future.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/23/2014 4:21 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no such thing as the "default init system".
> 
> There is only the one that portage will happen to install should you not
> specify a preference.

Lol!

That is what I would call a 'default'...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Alan McKinnon]

On 23/11/2014 23:45, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 4:21 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as the "default init system".
>>
>> There is only the one that portage will happen to install should you not
>> specify a preference.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> That is what I would call a 'default'...
> 
> 
> 


Now you argue against yourself. You said earlier:

"Irrelevant. Since OpenRC is the default init system, any package that
doesn't work properly with it would, by definition, be a bug that must
be fixed - if the maintainer wants their package to be marked as
stable/usable by 99.99% of gentoo users."



Now that is simply not true, because there is no such requirement and
your "by definition" does not exist in fact.

There are at least two general meanings for default:

1. The one you get if you don't say otherwise.

2. The initial start point, which is fully supported and you can always
expect it to work.


I'm using the first definition. You are using the second. And in this
post you appear to be trying to bring it around that the first must
imply the second. That is just not true.






-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Grant Edwards]

On 2014-11-23, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is only the one that portage will happen to install should you not
> specify a preference.

If "default" doesn't mean "what will happen should you not specify a
preference", then what _does_ "default" mean?

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! These PRESERVES should
                                  at               be FORCE-FED to PENTAGON
                              gmail.com            OFFICIALS!!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Alan McKinnon]

On 25/11/2014 18:35, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-11-23, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> There is only the one that portage will happen to install should you not
>> specify a preference.
> 
> If "default" doesn't mean "what will happen should you not specify a
> preference", then what _does_ "default" mean?
> 


Please go back and read the whole thread and stop quibbling about semantics.

The OP made statements that read as if he felt entitled to support,
bugfixes etc from the gentoo dev community by simple virtue of a
particular package being considered a default. I pointed out he was
expecting far in excess of what was promised.

In that context, there is no default as such that does that. There is
only the package that portage will install sans an explicit choice by
the user. As to what that will do (your question), why it will install
the package of course.

I really don't know why you made this post, it has little or nothing to
do with what I said. Looks like cherry picking selective sentences to me.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Grant Edwards]

On 2014-11-25, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/11/2014 18:35, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2014-11-23, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> There is only the one that portage will happen to install should you not
>>> specify a preference.
>> 
>> If "default" doesn't mean "what will happen should you not specify a
>> preference", then what _does_ "default" mean?
>
> Please go back and read the whole thread and stop quibbling about
> semantics.

I read the whole thread, and I still didn't understand your statement
that there is no default init system.

> The OP made statements that read as if he felt entitled to support,
> bugfixes etc from the gentoo dev community by simple virtue of a
> particular package being considered a default. I pointed out he was
> expecting far in excess of what was promised.

That's fine, and I agree 100%

But that's got nothing to do with whether Openrc is the default init
system or not?  It _is_ the default init system.  Whether that means
all packages are required to support it or not is a different question
(about which the OP seemed to be mistaken).  If what you meant was
that packages are not required to support the default init system,
then, I don't understand how that is spelled "there is no default init
system".

I honestly didn't understand why you said there was no default init
system, when there clearly is. I _did_ understand that not all
packages are required to support the default init system (which is
Openrc). That didn't appear to be what you were claiming.  Were it
true that there was no default init system, then you would have _no_
init system unless you explicitly installed one yourself (which is the
case for countless other things like a system logger, bootloader,
windowing system, desktop, photo editor, etc.).  For those things
there is no default.  There is a default init system.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! GOOD-NIGHT, everybody
                                  at               ... Now I have to go
                              gmail.com            administer FIRST-AID to my
                                                   pet LEISURE SUIT!!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tom H]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Some devs take this stuff too personally.

Only the devs? LOL

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Alan McKinnon]

On 23/11/2014 20:35, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 1:00 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:44:12PM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Since OpenRC is the *default* - for now at least - it is *king*, and
>>> systemd is the red-headed step-child, and as such OpenRC is and will be
>>> 100% fully supported.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, it is also 100% on the *systemd proponents* to make
>>> sure that *systemd* is 'fully supported' as an *alternate* init system.
>>
>> You're wrong.
> 
> Really? OpenRC isn't the default init system for Gentoo? Prove it...
> 
>> At first, Gentoo does with what software maintainers offer. 
> 
> Irrelevant. Since OpenRC is the default init system, any package that
> doesn't work properly with it would, by definition, be a bug that must
> be fixed - if the maintainer wants their package to be marked as
> stable/usable by 99.99% of gentoo users.

That is not true. In Gentoo, "default package" almost always means "the
package portage will chose to install unless you say otherwise".

It means nothing more than that. It especially does not mean what you
imply wrt bugs and the severity thereof. It does not imply some favoured
status for the default package, and that package is most often the
default for simple historical reasons dating way back to when it was the
only choice.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 11/21/2014 2:32 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As long as there are developers willing and able to support OpenRC in
>> Gentoo (and it looks like there are), that will be the case. To make
>> sure that this remains to be true, help them.
>
> This is really an incorrect (and even borderline arrogant) answer...

You are, of course, wrong. Mine is the correct (and actually the only) answer.

> To answer the OPs question correctly...
>
> Since OpenRC is the *default* - for now at least - it is *king*, and
> systemd is the red-headed step-child, and as such OpenRC is and will be
> 100% fully supported.

From Rich Freeman in this very thread, who (unlike you or me) is a
Gentoo dev, and a member of the council to boot:

"""
My (personal) sense is that in the medium-term we may end up moving to
not having any default at all, just as with bootloaders, kernels,
syslog, crontab, mail, etc.  That is pretty-much the Gentoo way
everywhere else when there are options.

As you already pointed out, as long as somebody cares to maintain
openrc and write init scripts for it, there will be support for it.
"""

> With that in mind, it is also 100% on the *systemd proponents* to make
> sure that *systemd* is 'fully supported' as an *alternate* init system.

And that's exactly what's happening... in Gentoo, GNOME officially
supports only systemd, not OpenRC.

Who is king again?

> Side-note, unless the nature of systemd changes quite a bit for the
> better in the future, if its supporters are ever able to force a change
> to it as the default init in gentoo, that will be the day I switch to
> FreeBSD.

You should read:

http://www.slideshare.net/iXsystems/jordan-hubbard-free-bsd-the-next-10-years

It's a presentation from a Core FreeBSD developer about the future of
FreeBSD. Of particular interest is slide 33:

"""
• I'm trying really hard not to suggest launchd here (so I won't)

• The idea of registering everything up-front with a broker and then
letting IPC / timers / HW events start things from there (in cascade
fashion) is still the right architecture

• Even the linux die-hards have essentially grasped the necessity of
systemd (even though they're going to hate on it for awhile longer)
"""

So, don't be surprised if FreeBSD develops something *really* similar
(along the lines of the second bullet) to systemd in the future

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Joliet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 928 bytes --]

Am Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:07:08 -0600
schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
[...]
> > To answer the OPs question correctly...
> >
> > Since OpenRC is the *default* - for now at least - it is *king*, and
> > systemd is the red-headed step-child, and as such OpenRC is and will be
> > 100% fully supported.
[...]
> > With that in mind, it is also 100% on the *systemd proponents* to make
> > sure that *systemd* is 'fully supported' as an *alternate* init system.
> 
> And that's exactly what's happening... in Gentoo, GNOME officially
> supports only systemd, not OpenRC.
> 
> Who is king again?
[...]

I get the distinct feeling that you two should probably read the LWN article
again.

-- 
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/23/2014 2:02 PM, Marc Joliet <marcec@gmx.de> wrote:
> I get the distinct feeling that you two should probably read the LWN article
> again.

No need...

This:

"In the end, it comes down to this: it just is not that important. It is
just a system initialization utility."

simply proves that the author either doesn't have a clue what systemd
is, or is attempting to obfuscate what it really is.

It is *much* more than '/just a system initialization utility', and in
fact, all of the brou-ha-ha is *because* of this fact.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/23/2014 1:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, don't be surprised if FreeBSD develops something *really* similar
> (along the lines of the second bullet) to systemd in the future

Doesn't matter because:

a) it won't be systemd
(with all of its warts)

b) it won't be written by Lennart and company
(so won't have any of that baggage either)

Also, I'll wager it likely won't be implemented in such a way as to be
perceived by its user base as being shoved down their throats.

They will, I'm sure, that the long view (this slideshow is  simply take
the best parts of systemd, lose the garbage (that is the source of most
of the angst), and end up with something rather sane.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/23/2014 3:23 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> Also, I'll wager it likely won't be implemented in such a way as to be
> perceived by its user base as being shoved down their throats.

Clarification - this reference was actually to the way Debian is
handling it, not Gentoo - I have no problems whatsoever with the way
gentoo is handling systemd ... right now at least...

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tom H]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 1:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, don't be surprised if FreeBSD develops something *really* similar
>> (along the lines of the second bullet) to systemd in the future
>
> Doesn't matter because:
>
> a) it won't be systemd
> (with all of its warts)
>
> b) it won't be written by Lennart and company
> (so won't have any of that baggage either)

I'm a happy sysvinit+sysvrc, upstart, sysvinit+openrc, and systemd user.

As far as an init system brings up the OS, starts the daemons that I
want, and allows me to troubleshoot failures, I couldn't care less
what init system's controlling boot.

I therefore find anti-systemd posts like this one puzzling, and even
surreal, since the people making them are theoretically technical, and
therefore logical.

Lennart made some design choices that I wish that he hadn't made but
I'm not losing any sleep over this; and I don't understand why anyone
else should.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Marc Stuermer]

Am 27.11.2014 um 15:21 schrieb Tom H:

> Lennart made some design choices that I wish that he hadn't made but
> I'm not losing any sleep over this; and I don't understand why anyone
> else should.

Three frequently brought up issues:

1. Lennart Poettering does not exactly have a track record of making
excellent software, more likely making banana software and if he loses
interest in his project, hopefully someone will take over.

Though him stepping back from Systemd would not be a big issue, because
Red Hat does endorse and support it and for sure would find someone else
to step up.

Excellent software though is another cup of coffee, many just don't want
to have his stuff being responsible for booting up their system because
of his track record and personal attitude he shows at some conferences
and is being held up against him quite frequently.

(For example stuff like this here should not happen:
https://plus.google.com/+TheodoreTso/posts/4W6rrMMvhWU)

2. The "Red Hat wants to take over all other Linux distributions, then
squash them and Systemd it their trojan horse."

3. Systemd just got way too big and complicated for the taste of many
techies, also usurping the development of other key components which in
former times where independent (think about udev, there's a reason for
why the eudev-fork came into existance).

This and Systemd becoming a hard dependancy for important software
packages.

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 1:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, don't be surprised if FreeBSD develops something *really* similar
>> (along the lines of the second bullet) to systemd in the future
>
> Doesn't matter because:
>
> a) it won't be systemd
> (with all of its warts)
>
> b) it won't be written by Lennart and company
> (so won't have any of that baggage either)

Oh my. So it's the name of the project and (one) author? All the
design and ideas behind it are irrelevant then?

You just gave me the most perfect justification to never ever take you
seriously in this subject.

Good day, sir.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[gentoo-user] Re: The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 02:34:52PM -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> Oh my. So it's the name of the project and (one) author? All the
> design and ideas behind it are irrelevant then?
> 
> You just gave me the most perfect justification to never ever take you
> seriously in this subject.
> 
> Good day, sir.

Please, stop feeding that troll!

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tanstaafl]

On 11/23/2014 3:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>> On 11/23/2014 1:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So, don't be surprised if FreeBSD develops something *really* similar
>>> (along the lines of the second bullet) to systemd in the future
>>
>> Doesn't matter because:
>>
>> a) it won't be systemd
>> (with all of its warts)
>>
>> b) it won't be written by Lennart and company
>> (so won't have any of that baggage either)

> Oh my. So it's the name of the project and (one) author? All the
> design and ideas behind it are irrelevant then?

Not what I said at all, and certainly not what I meant, and you know (or
should have known) it.

I was talking about THE BAGGAGE that comes with those two things (the
name, and its association with Lennart).

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the sentiments, are you
seriously suggesting those two things aren't 'baggage' in this case?

Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now

[Tom H]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 3:23 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>>
>> Also, I'll wager it likely won't be implemented in such a way as to be
>> perceived by its user base as being shoved down their throats.
>
> Clarification - this reference was actually to the way Debian is
> handling it, not Gentoo - I have no problems whatsoever with the way
> gentoo is handling systemd ... right now at least...

Gentoo has the advantage of being source-based and allowing 'USE="...
-systemd ..."'.

If the Debianites opposed to using systemd were willing to
systemd-shim and cgmanager, they wouldn't be feeling forced.