Where did Microsoft go wrong?

222 views
Skip to first unread message

gareth evans

unread,
Sep 5, 2020, 3:57:57 PM9/5/20
to
With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
provided products to help you control your computer, but
with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
computer.

W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
I buy will be LINUX based.

So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft
customer and user, they have finally succeeded in
driving me away.

Bob Eager

unread,
Sep 5, 2020, 4:40:33 PM9/5/20
to
It didn't take that long for me. I was using UNIX years before MS-DIS
existed. I started with PC-DOS 2.0 (free copy) when I was asked to write
a book on it.

I still have Windows, but only for specialist software - my chip
programmer, and instrumentation software for the electronics stuff
(scope, function generator, etc.)


--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Sep 5, 2020, 6:00:46 PM9/5/20
to
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 20:57:50 +0100
gareth evans <headst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> With MS-DOS

Was OK ish.

> and early versions of Windows,

Wouldn't run multiple DOS applications, I wasn't impressed.

> Microsoft
> provided products to help you control your computer, but

Hmm, "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run" - remember that ?

> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
> computer.

Not new.

> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft
> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in
> driving me away.

They never managed to attract me in the first place, but then the
first time I came across the idea that their code might not be the best was
at Newbury Labs when Basil's student programmer (whose name I think was
Clive but ICBW) came down the stairs shouting "We've done it, we've got 16K
BASIC into 4K of ROM", meaning all the features of a typical Microsoft 16K
BASIC.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

Jorgen Grahn

unread,
Sep 5, 2020, 6:50:51 PM9/5/20
to
On Sat, 2020-09-05, gareth evans wrote:
> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
> provided products to help you control your computer, but
> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
> computer.
>
> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
> I buy will be LINUX based.

You don't have to wait; if all important hardware in your current
PC is supported, you can blow away Windows and install Linux on it
tomorrow. Ubuntu Linux is a popular choice.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

Joe Pfeiffer

unread,
Sep 5, 2020, 7:01:07 PM9/5/20
to
Grew up on BSD Unix on a VAXen. When I got my first Windows laptop
(running 3.11 on a compaq Concerto) I lasted about a week before I
started looking into how to install Linux.

J. Clarke

unread,
Sep 5, 2020, 7:35:24 PM9/5/20
to
On 5 Sep 2020 22:50:48 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
wrote:

>On Sat, 2020-09-05, gareth evans wrote:
>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
>> provided products to help you control your computer, but
>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
>> computer.
>>
>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
>> I buy will be LINUX based.
>
>You don't have to wait; if all important hardware in your current
>PC is supported, you can blow away Windows and install Linux on it
>tomorrow. Ubuntu Linux is a popular choice.

Or even (shhh) OS/X.

Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 5, 2020, 8:59:24 PM9/5/20
to
Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-09-05, gareth evans wrote:
>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
>> provided products to help you control your computer, but
>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
>> computer.
>>
>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
>> I buy will be LINUX based.
>
> You don't have to wait; if all important hardware in your current
> PC is supported, you can blow away Windows and install Linux on it
> tomorrow. Ubuntu Linux is a popular choice.
>

I tend to never get rid of an OS - I always have the nagging feeling that
there’s something on the machine I will need later. Most systems give you
the option to Install in a partition, but older systems usually don’t have
enough disk. You might as well buy a new system. I’m considering installing
OS/2 in a partition, or picking up a cheap second-hand machine. I’m tired
of VirtualBox.

--
Pete

J. Clarke

unread,
Sep 5, 2020, 10:07:47 PM9/5/20
to
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 17:59:22 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
By OS/2 do you mean EcomStation? If not I suspect OS/2 is not going
to have a clue what to do with most modern physical hardware.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 2:30:05 AM9/6/20
to
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:35:22 -0400
J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >You don't have to wait; if all important hardware in your current
> >PC is supported, you can blow away Windows and install Linux on it
> >tomorrow. Ubuntu Linux is a popular choice.
>
> Or even (shhh) OS/X.

I don't think you can do that legally.

Jorgen Grahn

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 4:12:21 AM9/6/20
to
On Sun, 2020-09-06, Peter Flass wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2020-09-05, gareth evans wrote:
>>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
>>> provided products to help you control your computer, but
>>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
>>> computer.
>>>
>>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
>>> I buy will be LINUX based.
>>
>> You don't have to wait; if all important hardware in your current
>> PC is supported, you can blow away Windows and install Linux on it
>> tomorrow. Ubuntu Linux is a popular choice.
>>
>
> I tend to never get rid of an OS - I always have the nagging feeling that
> there’s something on the machine I will need later.

I have that feeling too. Had to fight it at work this week: we got
new laptops and had to hand in our old ones, after copying whatever we
needed. I /think/ I got all I needed; time will tell.

I remembered things I usually forget: my ssh keys, some stuff from the
Windows registry, and my hundreds of Firefox tabs. But now I have to
configure things like Office, Outlook and Windows itself -- I don't
know how to backup things like the Windows keyboard autorepeat rate.

Bob Eager

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 4:23:42 AM9/6/20
to
Me too. Only it was Sixth Edition on a PDP-11, then the VAX, then others.

But I went from BSD on VAX and successors, to FreeBSD on the PC.

Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 9:30:32 AM9/6/20
to
Actually Arcae Noae now, I think the eComStation people aren’t doing much
development. Arca Noae is still being actively developed.

--
Pete

J. Clarke

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 10:02:21 AM9/6/20
to
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 06:30:30 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
Thank you. I lost track of OS/2 development somewhere along the line.
Looks like Arca Noae bought what remained of eComStation.

Bud Spencer

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 10:47:24 AM9/6/20
to
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020, Peter Flass wrote:

> Actually Arcae Noae now, I think the eComStation people aren’t doing much
> development. Arca Noae is still being actively developed.

Actually Arca OS. Arca Noae is company developing Arca OS.


/
Bud
/

a1=S0
b1=[1..2,'L0L']
a2=2*a1
a3=S1.4#b1
a4=(a2,a3)
a5=64*a4

gareth evans

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 11:19:43 AM9/6/20
to
On 05/09/2020 23:50, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-09-05, gareth evans wrote:
>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
>> provided products to help you control your computer, but
>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
>> computer.
>>
>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
>> I buy will be LINUX based.
>
> You don't have to wait; if all important hardware in your current
> PC is supported, you can blow away Windows and install Linux on it
> tomorrow. Ubuntu Linux is a popular choice.

SWMBO is an occasional user of this PC, and it'd be
impossible to retrain her.

But starting from scratch on a new PC will be much easier.

I do have a LINUX dual booting on a single processor laptop,
where the LINUX is faster to boot up than the native XP on it,
but it only gets an airing once a week and that only to keep
the battery topped up.



gareth evans

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 11:20:37 AM9/6/20
to
Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all!

gareth evans

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 11:23:38 AM9/6/20
to
The oldest machine still usable here is a W95 laptop with and LCD screen
only 6 inches wide!

(Used for the ICOM PCR1000 RX)

Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 2:14:34 PM9/6/20
to
I’m envious.

--
Pete

Scott Lurndal

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 4:03:35 PM9/6/20
to
Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:01:03 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> gareth evans <headst...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft provided products
>>> to help you control your computer, but with W10 they are trying to
>>> control the way you use the computer.
>>>
>>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC I buy will be LINUX
>>> based.
>>>
>>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft customer and user,
>>> they have finally succeeded in driving me away.
>>
>> Grew up on BSD Unix on a VAXen. When I got my first Windows laptop
>> (running 3.11 on a compaq Concerto) I lasted about a week before I
>> started looking into how to install Linux.
>
>Me too. Only it was Sixth Edition on a PDP-11, then the VAX, then others.

Similar progression for me - sixth edition on a 11/34, a set of four
780's (linked with an MA780 shared memory unit); mostly ran VMS,
but we ran the 32-bit Unix from WE on vax A during weekends.

SVR3.2, SVR4, SVR4.2ES/MP, Unixware 2.1, and RH7, RH8, RHEL, Centos, Scientific
Linux, and the occasional Suse SLES.

Over forty years of kernel development starting on the 11/34 (v6 drivers).

Bob Eager

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 6:48:55 PM9/6/20
to
I did that too. Part wrote an OS for PDP-11, and worked on the compiler
for it.

Currently restoring a non-DEC PDP-11 OS from partial sources.

Bob Eager

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 6:51:07 PM9/6/20
to
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:19:38 +0100, gareth evans wrote:

> SWMBO is an occasional user of this PC, and it'd be impossible to
> retrain her.

Here, I have my own FreeBSD desktop and also a Windows one for when there
is no alternative (e.g. the chip programmer).

SWMBO also has a FreeBSD desktop and a Windows one.

All the servers are FreeBSD. Other machines include fource PDP-11s and
three VAXes!

Joe Pfeiffer

unread,
Sep 6, 2020, 7:26:52 PM9/6/20
to
sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> writes:
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:01:03 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>>> gareth evans <headst...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft provided products
>>>> to help you control your computer, but with W10 they are trying to
>>>> control the way you use the computer.
>>>>
>>>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC I buy will be LINUX
>>>> based.
>>>>
>>>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft customer and user,
>>>> they have finally succeeded in driving me away.
>>>
>>> Grew up on BSD Unix on a VAXen. When I got my first Windows laptop
>>> (running 3.11 on a compaq Concerto) I lasted about a week before I
>>> started looking into how to install Linux.
>>
>>Me too. Only it was Sixth Edition on a PDP-11, then the VAX, then others.
>
> Similar progression for me - sixth edition on a 11/34, a set of four
> 780's (linked with an MA780 shared memory unit); mostly ran VMS,
> but we ran the 32-bit Unix from WE on vax A during weekends.

When we (UWash Computer Science Teaching Lab) got our VAX, it was
running VMS. I was a student lab assistant when we switched to Unix,
and I argued long and hard against the change. I've seldom been so
happy (in retrospect) to have lost an argument.

Thomas Koenig

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 1:27:54 AM9/7/20
to
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> schrieb:
> gareth evans <headst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all!

> I’m envious.

There are / were computers that could still be understood, in both
hardware and software, by a single person. The C-64 was such a
machine - you had full ROM listings, plus the hardware specs of
the different chips were well known. You just had to buy a couple
of books and work through them.

It is probably safe to say that the VAX under VMS was beyond that,
as are modern PCs. IBM/360 probably was incomprehensible from
the very beginning :-)

What about the PDP-11, where was it on that trajectory?

Bob Eager

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 4:32:24 AM9/7/20
to
You could do prertty much everything. DEC's engineering philosophy was
that you could find everything.

I have just been working on a 'lost' operating system for te PDP-11. I
found everything I needed to know, down to the last bit controlling the
CPU, instruction set, peripheral programming, the lot. I had to write
quite a lot of code (starting with a boot block). Much of it in
assembler, or modifying a compiler to generate better code.

I haven't had to guess or reverse engineer anything - it was all there.

gareth evans

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 5:58:22 AM9/7/20
to
Based upon the simple real-time exec to which I was introduced in 1974,
(Automation division of Westinghouse Brake & Signal, paper tape plus
teletype console PDP11 to control part of the National Grid at
Walpole St Andrew substation), when the world of microprocessors
was emerging, in order to understand the order code (instruction
set to the Yanks) of each new micro, I hand coded a 256 byte version
of that exec.

Obviously in that size, a static build, with no provision for
loading other tasks on the fly.




gareth evans

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 6:01:27 AM9/7/20
to
Dead easy; you had a processor manual giving all the instructions
together with I/O interfacing requirements, and, additionally you
got countless (about A3 size) books of circuits!

Chris

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 12:47:49 PM9/7/20
to
On 09/05/20 20:57, gareth evans wrote:
> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
> provided products to help you control your computer, but
> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
> computer.
>
> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
> I buy will be LINUX based.
>
> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft
> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in
> driving me away.

Have a look at FreeBSD. Less bloated than Linux, no
systemd, installs in less than an hour and is rock
solid. The only downside is that you have to install
the gui of choice, but they are all available as
packages, taking 10 mins or so to install. Just about
all Linux packages are available as well.

Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is
the current version, fwir...

Chris

Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 1:28:49 PM9/7/20
to
The hardware was pretty obvious. MVS is opaque, but CP67 (VM/370) had full
listings and was pretty straightforward, from what I’ve seen.

>
> What about the PDP-11, where was it on that trajectory?
>



--
Pete

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 1:30:04 PM9/7/20
to
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 17:47:47 +0100
Chris <xxx.sys...@gfsys.co.uk> wrote:

> Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is
> the current version, fwir...

12.1 and 11.4 are the current releases, 13 is the up and coming
release under development.

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 1:44:44 PM9/7/20
to
Oops, war starting.

What does Google say:

Is FreeBSD better than Linux?
Both are stable and provide an efficient working environment. However,
the general consensus is that nearly all applications run faster on
Linux than FreeBSD, but FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack has way less latency
(faster response time) than Linux.Jun 27, 2018

When someone tells you their OS is better because it doesn't have
systemd, well, hate to say this, but they're uninformed.

I'll take systemd over SysV init every day.
BSDs init looks to me like more of the same.

systemd took a total mess and transformed it into a logical well
designed structure. Basic system design principles will tell you
this. Systemd took a mess of inconsistent start up scripts and a nest
of soft links and turned it into a very simple structure where ONE
file describes each service to be managed. It did all this and managed
to:

1. Reduce boot time dramatically
2. Reduce shut down time the same way
3. Manage running services in case a device is plugged in or has a
problem and needs to restart
4. Finally make the relationships between running services clear


--
Dan Espen

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 1:50:19 PM9/7/20
to
Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> writes:
> IBM/360 probably was incomprehensible from
> the very beginning :-)

I was able to read and comprehend POPs but it took an inordinate
amount of effort.

My intent was to be able to write my own stuff and avoid IBMs
lackluster products. After seeing what I was up against
I gave up.

So, I'm going to say incomprehensible is fair.


--
Dan Espen

Bob Eager

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 4:57:41 PM9/7/20
to
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 18:02:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 17:47:47 +0100 Chris <xxx.sys...@gfsys.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is the current version,
>> fwir...
>
> 12.1 and 11.4 are the current releases, 13 is the up and coming
> release under development.

Yup. Currently running the house on 12.1 (as well as the jitsi server on
EC2).

Testing ports on 13-CURRENT.

Chris

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 7:05:37 PM9/7/20
to
Won't get involved in wars, as I do use both and both work, though
all Linux here is pre systemd, or devuan.
However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far
more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native
zfs file system and yes, no systemd.

If you want an example of how to do a higher level system management,
look at Solaris, which kept most of the original log files and
locations, but introduced an xml layer above all that, which you
can bypass if you need to. How would you do that for log and config
files with systemd ?. Might help brain dead sysadmins, but opaque
if you need to do serious work under the hood. It's got it's fingers
into every part of the system and is totaly against any concept of
functional isolation, partioning and layered design.

As to the list, 1, 4 ?, who cares if boot and shutdown take a bit
longer, it's not a race, 3) Solaris and FreeBSD both both have had
service management utilities for years. 4) That's if the sysadmin
has the internal knowledge, but that's true for both os's.

\rant :-)...

Chris


I view Linux as a wondoze substitute these day, but ymmv...
management utilities
.

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 7:40:58 PM9/7/20
to
Not sure why zfs is a big winner:

ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by
Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection
against data corruption, support for high storage capacities,

I was just reading about Fedora's new file system, XFS.
I'm not facing any issues with ext4 though.

For Fedora, I didn't like or need LVM so I turned it off.
I wanted /home on a physically separate volume not a virtual volume.

> If you want an example of how to do a higher level system management,
> look at Solaris, which kept most of the original log files and
> locations, but introduced an xml layer above all that, which you
> can bypass if you need to. How would you do that for log and config
> files with systemd ?.

I must be misunderstanding something, my Fedora system has all the
traditional logs in addition to the journal. Of course that is a
distinct issue from the init system.

At work all of the init stuff on my Solaris systems was read protected
by the admins so I couldn't see what it was doing, but I was under
the impression it was similar to systemd. Fortunately systemd uses
simple flat files instead of xml.

> Might help brain dead sysadmins, but opaque
> if you need to do serious work under the hood. It's got it's fingers
> into every part of the system and is totaly against any concept of
> functional isolation, partioning and layered design.

I don't know what part of systemd you are talking about.
The init system part (which is the real systemd) just replaces
all those init scripts and the forest of soft links. It replaces all
that with just one .service file for each service.

Couldn't be simpler.

Here is the .service file for Emacs:

home> cat /usr/lib/systemd/user/emacs.service
[Unit]
Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor

[Service]
Type=forking
ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon
ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)"
Restart=always

[Install]
WantedBy=default.target

Look at the beauty of that simple design.
How to start it, how to stop it, what to call it, what to do if it fails.
It couldn't be any simpler.

> As to the list, 1, 4 ?, who cares if boot and shutdown take a bit
> longer, it's not a race, 3) Solaris and FreeBSD both both have had
> service management utilities for years. 4) That's if the sysadmin
> has the internal knowledge, but that's true for both os's.

Well systemd has it's undeniable good points so invariably it's
detractors come up with "who cares".

I was trouble shooting a problem that needed 5 or 6 reboots just today.
I care.

> I view Linux as a wondoze substitute these day, but ymmv...

There you go. It's just like Windows!

Absurd.


--
Dan Espen

Chris

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 8:33:55 PM9/7/20
to
I use older versions of Suse, but the last time I had a look at a
later version, it had animations, bouncy bouncy and more dross,
pages and pages full of running processes, no idea what they all
did, Windows wannabe incarnate, but no use to me. The problem with
systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things, Linux
is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running
the show, the kernel, or systemd. Apparently gnome won't run now
without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?.

Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where
services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't
much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management
utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes running
with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering
efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)...

Chris

John Levine

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 9:27:57 PM9/7/20
to
In article <rj6ge8$jkq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far
>> more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native
>> zfs file system and yes, no systemd.
>
>Not sure why zfs is a big winner:
>
> ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by
> Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection
> against data corruption, support for high storage capacities,

ZFS is great. It handles all the complex disk management in a coherent
way. It handles combinations of RAID and disk mirroring and SSD caches
and and lets you efficiently create lots of logical partitions sharing
a pool of space, but with each partition having different compression,
filename rules, quotas, and so forth. It also lets you make snapshots
of a partition's state and efficiently roll forward and back which
makes backup and restore a lot easier.

My FreeBSD server has four disks configured as two mirrored pairs in
one pool, with 58 logical partitions so I can manage each user or each
web site separately.

I happen to find FreeBSD's rc.d startup and shutdown scripts quite
adequate but I realize I'm not going to win arguments with people who
like systemd.

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Questor

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 10:31:01 PM9/7/20
to
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 20:57:50 +0100, gareth evans <headst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong?

Perhaps the answer lies within one of these:

Pride Before the Fall: The Trials of Bill Gates and the End
of the Microsoft Era
-- John Heilemann

Breaking Windows: How Bill Gates Fumbled the Future of Microsoft
-- David Bank

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 10:39:07 PM9/7/20
to
To get rid of all that use a window manager. I install new releases
all the time. Nothing visible changes unless I want it to.

> The problem with
> systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things,

Actually no. The systemd project has spread out into many areas.
That's just a sign of how productive the systemd team is.

I consider that a separate issue from systemd the replacement from init.

And I can't see how it's a problem if one team keeps looking at
Linux thinking what should we improve next. So, to clarify,
it's not systemd that has it's fingers in so many things, it's the
systemd team.

> Linux
> is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running
> the show, the kernel, or systemd.

systemd starts all the services. The kernel still does what it's
supposed to do. I don't see a problem.

> Apparently gnome won't run now
> without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?.

Gnome is full of utilities that start/stop/customize services.
How do you suppose they do that without being dependent on
the .service files?

> Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where
> services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't
> much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management
> utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes
> running with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering
> efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)...

One config file for hundreds of possible services?
I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty
sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's
hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't
tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start,
do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the service?

Take a look at this:

h> systemctl status acpid
acpid.service - ACPI Event Daemon
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/acpid.service; disabled; vendor preset: disabled)
Active: active (running) since Mon 2020-09-07 12:45:21 EDT; 9h ago
TriggeredBy: acpid.socket
Docs: man:acpid(8)
Main PID: 1023 (acpid)
Tasks: 1 (limit: 2306)
Memory: 248.0K
CPU: 6.613s
CGroup: /system.slice/acpid.service
/usr/sbin/acpid -f
Sep 07 12:45:21 home.home systemd[1]: Started ACPI Event Daemon.



--
Dan Espen

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 7, 2020, 10:54:06 PM9/7/20
to
John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:

> In article <rj6ge8$jkq$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far
>>> more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native
>>> zfs file system and yes, no systemd.
>>
>>Not sure why zfs is a big winner:
>>
>> ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by
>> Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection
>> against data corruption, support for high storage capacities,
>
> ZFS is great. It handles all the complex disk management in a coherent
> way. It handles combinations of RAID and disk mirroring and SSD caches
> and and lets you efficiently create lots of logical partitions sharing
> a pool of space, but with each partition having different compression,
> filename rules, quotas, and so forth. It also lets you make snapshots
> of a partition's state and efficiently roll forward and back which
> makes backup and restore a lot easier.
>
> My FreeBSD server has four disks configured as two mirrored pairs in
> one pool, with 58 logical partitions so I can manage each user or each
> web site separately.

Yeah, sorry, I was speaking with the home user blinders on.
For my own use I have no use for an LVM and I disabled the one
Fedora likes to turn on.

I've got the system on a 128G SSD and /home on a 1TB SSD.
1TB seemed like a high storage capacity, but with many users
I guess that's a drop in the bucket. I'm not sure where
my storage would exceed system capacity.

Backups are /home only to 2 USB sticks. I don't need to backup the
system, if I lost it, I'd just get a new disk and reinstall.

Fedora is pushing xfs, not sure how it's diffrent than ext4 but
I get by with ext4 fine.


--
Dan Espen

Bob Eager

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 7:01:03 AM9/8/20
to
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 22:39:05 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

> One config file for hundreds of possible services?

No, one to say which services are enabled. And options if required.

> I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty
> sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's
> hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't
> tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start,
> do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the
> service?

service <servcename> describe.

The scripts are all structured the same, and the commands are documented
at the top.

Chris

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 9:42:21 AM9/8/20
to
On 09/08/20 03:39, Dan Espen wrote:
> Chris<xxx.sys...@gfsys.co.uk> writes:
>

<snipped)

>>
>> I use older versions of Suse, but the last time I had a look at a
>> later version, it had animations, bouncy bouncy and more dross,
>> pages and pages full of running processes, no idea what they all
>> did, Windows wannabe incarnate, but no use to me.
>
> To get rid of all that use a window manager. I install new releases
> all the time. Nothing visible changes unless I want it to.

I must be missing something, as if you are running a gui,with all the
bouncy castle stuff, then you have a window manager running. As for
updates, rarely do it. Once a system is the way I want it, it's locked
down unless there are good reasons to change it. Constant updates
are a windoze "feature", but that just illustrates how bad it
really is, with so many bugs as shipped. The update idea is like
insurance, selling fear and paranoia.

>
>> The problem with
>> systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things,
>
> Actually no. The systemd project has spread out into many areas.
> That's just a sign of how productive the systemd team is.

You are trolling, right ? :-).

I guess you can paint a t**d any colour you like, but it still
stinks underneath.


>
> I consider that a separate issue from systemd the replacement from init.

I thought that was the whole point of systemd, an init replacement,
but obviously misjudged it. If true, systemd has visions of empire,
running the whole show instead of the kernel. Thought from the
start that the systemd project was a power grab by Red Hat and all
part of the strategy to exert ever more control over the direction
of Linux as an open source project. In some ways, that's
understandable, since they fund a lot of development, but there's a
fine balance between the idealism and creativity of open source and
the hard edged businesses which companies like Red Hat are.

>
> And I can't see how it's a problem if one team keeps looking at
> Linux thinking what should we improve next. So, to clarify,
> it's not systemd that has it's fingers in so many things, it's the
> systemd team.

If it ain't broke, dont fix it, though I guess they have to justify
their existence and salaries. With that attitude, no wonder mainstream
Linux looks more and more like a Camel. Change for change's sake
rarely has a good outcome.

>
>> Linux
>> is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running
>> the show, the kernel, or systemd.
>
> systemd starts all the services. The kernel still does what it's
> supposed to do. I don't see a problem.
>
>> Apparently gnome won't run now
>> without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?.
>
> Gnome is full of utilities that start/stop/customize services.
> How do you suppose they do that without being dependent on
> the .service files?.

That doesn't address the the comment. Deflection ?.

>
>> Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where
>> services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't
>> much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management
>> utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes
>> running with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering
>> efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)...
>
> One config file for hundreds of possible services?
> I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty
> sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's
> hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't
> tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start,
> do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the service?

Sure, thee are config scripts for the various services, but for a
typical system, rarely any need to even look at them. They can be
controlled, start, stop restart etc, from the command line or from
elsewhere, such as the rc.conf file. On solaris, there are the svcs
and svcadm utilities and on FreeBSD, the service utility. I keep
mentioning Solaris, but have used it for decades and FreeBSD is a nod in
that direction, with ZFS, light weight virtualisation ideas
seemingly borrowed from it.

>
> Take a look at this:
>
> h> systemctl status acpid
> acpid.service - ACPI Event Daemon
> Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/acpid.service; disabled; vendor preset: disabled)
> Active: active (running) since Mon 2020-09-07 12:45:21 EDT; 9h ago
> TriggeredBy: acpid.socket
> Docs: man:acpid(8)
> Main PID: 1023 (acpid)
> Tasks: 1 (limit: 2306)
> Memory: 248.0K
> CPU: 6.613s
> CGroup: /system.slice/acpid.service
> /usr/sbin/acpid -f
> Sep 07 12:45:21 home.home systemd[1]: Started ACPI Event Daemon.
>
>
>

FreeBSD has equivalent management tools. For example, ps -dx
gives a tree structured text listing of the processes on the
system and their hierarchy.The service command will
list services and information, as well as start stop,
restart etc. The top command gives a load of info on running
processes, memory usage, priority and current state, but that's
on most unix systems. Perhaps systemd will do that and more,
but why ?.

A quick test here, xfce4 + couple of terminal windows running,
around 75 processes loaded. Now try that with linux and gnome 3.
Do you want a lean and clean street racer,. or a sclerotic mess ?.

Anyway, you have already said you know nothing about it, so
why not broaden your horizons and give it a test install ?.
Less than an hour of your time, or is a text only install and
package config too difficult ?. Plenty of how to tutorials on
the web if you get stuck...

Chris



Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 10:28:39 AM9/8/20
to
Chris <xxx.sys...@gfsys.co.uk> writes:

> On 09/08/20 03:39, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Chris<xxx.sys...@gfsys.co.uk> writes:
>
> <snipped)
>
>>>
>>> I use older versions of Suse, but the last time I had a look at a
>>> later version, it had animations, bouncy bouncy and more dross,
>>> pages and pages full of running processes, no idea what they all
>>> did, Windows wannabe incarnate, but no use to me.
>>
>> To get rid of all that use a window manager. I install new releases
>> all the time. Nothing visible changes unless I want it to.
>
> I must be missing something, as if you are running a gui,with all the
> bouncy castle stuff, then you have a window manager running.

I guess I wasn't clear.

The window managers packaged as a 'desktop' tend to be the ones that
change all the time and bounce around.

If you pick one of the more traditional window managers nothing
will bounce around or change without you wanting it to.

My main experience is with Fvwm. Maybe other window managers are
different. Another poster mentioned a twm variant. Very stable,
no bouncing.

> As for updates, rarely do it. Once a system is the way I want it, it's locked
> down unless there are good reasons to change it. Constant updates
> are a windoze "feature", but that just illustrates how bad it
> really is, with so many bugs as shipped. The update idea is like
> insurance, selling fear and paranoia.

I like to apply updates to get the latest versions of the software
I'm using. Stability has it's benefits but it's hard to follow
a Gimp tutorial when you're not running the version the tutorial
addresses.

>>> The problem with
>>> systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things,
>>
>> Actually no. The systemd project has spread out into many areas.
>> That's just a sign of how productive the systemd team is.
>
> You are trolling, right ? :-).
>
> I guess you can paint a t**d any colour you like, but it still
> stinks underneath.

Ridiculous.

>> I consider that a separate issue from systemd the replacement from init.
>
> I thought that was the whole point of systemd, an init replacement,
> but obviously misjudged it. If true, systemd has visions of empire,
> running the whole show instead of the kernel. Thought from the
> start that the systemd project was a power grab by Red Hat and all
> part of the strategy to exert ever more control over the direction
> of Linux as an open source project. In some ways, that's
> understandable, since they fund a lot of development, but there's a
> fine balance between the idealism and creativity of open source and
> the hard edged businesses which companies like Red Hat are.

More ridiculous. The kernel still does what it needs to do.

>> And I can't see how it's a problem if one team keeps looking at
>> Linux thinking what should we improve next. So, to clarify,
>> it's not systemd that has it's fingers in so many things, it's the
>> systemd team.
>
> If it ain't broke, dont fix it, though I guess they have to justify
> their existence and salaries. With that attitude, no wonder mainstream
> Linux looks more and more like a Camel. Change for change's sake
> rarely has a good outcome.

I guess your corollary is if it can be improved leave it alone.

>>> Linux
>>> is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running
>>> the show, the kernel, or systemd.
>>
>> systemd starts all the services. The kernel still does what it's
>> supposed to do. I don't see a problem.
>>
>>> Apparently gnome won't run now
>>> without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?.
>>
>> Gnome is full of utilities that start/stop/customize services.
>> How do you suppose they do that without being dependent on
>> the .service files?.
>
> That doesn't address the the comment. Deflection ?.

What comment? The kernel vs. systemd comment?
The kernel does what it does, systemd hasn't changed that.
What "show" are you thinking about?

>>> Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where
>>> services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't
>>> much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management
>>> utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes
>>> running with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering
>>> efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)...
>>
>> One config file for hundreds of possible services?
>> I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty
>> sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's
>> hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't
>> tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start,
>> do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the service?
>
> Sure, thee are config scripts for the various services, but for a
> typical system, rarely any need to even look at them. They can be
> controlled, start, stop restart etc, from the command line or from
> elsewhere, such as the rc.conf file. On solaris, there are the svcs
> and svcadm utilities and on FreeBSD, the service utility. I keep
> mentioning Solaris, but have used it for decades and FreeBSD is a nod
> in that direction, with ZFS, light weight virtualisation ideas
> seemingly borrowed from it.

Deflection?

What does ZFS have to do with systemd?

>> Take a look at this:
>>
>> h> systemctl status acpid
>> acpid.service - ACPI Event Daemon
>> Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/acpid.service; disabled; vendor preset: disabled)
>> Active: active (running) since Mon 2020-09-07 12:45:21 EDT; 9h ago
>> TriggeredBy: acpid.socket
>> Docs: man:acpid(8)
>> Main PID: 1023 (acpid)
>> Tasks: 1 (limit: 2306)
>> Memory: 248.0K
>> CPU: 6.613s
>> CGroup: /system.slice/acpid.service
>> /usr/sbin/acpid -f
>> Sep 07 12:45:21 home.home systemd[1]: Started ACPI Event Daemon.
>
> FreeBSD has equivalent management tools. For example, ps -dx
> gives a tree structured text listing of the processes on the
> system and their hierarchy.The service command will
> list services and information, as well as start stop,
> restart etc. The top command gives a load of info on running
> processes, memory usage, priority and current state, but that's
> on most unix systems. Perhaps systemd will do that and more,
> but why ?.

So with systemd you get one integrated display of a services status
along with a description of what it does. Linux has all the
tools you mention. Why does systemd tell you all it does?
Because you asked about the services status. It gives you
a complete answer. Is your claim that it's better to have to hunt
around for all that information?

> A quick test here, xfce4 + couple of terminal windows running,
> around 75 processes loaded. Now try that with linux and gnome 3.
> Do you want a lean and clean street racer,. or a sclerotic mess ?.

I fail to see the significance of your comment about xfce vs. Gnome.
Both work fine with systemd.

> Anyway, you have already said you know nothing about it, so
> why not broaden your horizons and give it a test install ?.
> Less than an hour of your time, or is a text only install and
> package config too difficult ?. Plenty of how to tutorials on
> the web if you get stuck...

Is it too difficult?
Are you trying to insult me?

Right now my system is doing everything I need.
So far I haven't seen anything mentioned that would qualify
as an improvement.

I guess I just don't have the "systemd is evil" disease.

--
Dan Espen

Joe Pfeiffer

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 11:20:23 AM9/8/20
to
If all systemd did was control the process and the daemons, I'd be a
*big* supporter as well -- you're right about it fixing sysvinit's
issues.

What I don't like about it is the extent to which a lot of perfectly
good, limited purpose daemons are being folded into it. There was no
reason to fold udev into it, no reason to fold logind into it...

Scott Lurndal

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 11:38:13 AM9/8/20
to
Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:
>Chris <xxx.sys...@gfsys.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 09/07/20 18:44, Dan Espen wrote:

>>>
>>> 1. Reduce boot time dramatically

Not a problem when you boot once a decade, which is
true of most servers (and in my case, desktop systems).

$ uptime
08:36:30 up 686 days, 20:43, 24 users, load average: 0.23, 0.16, 0.16

>>> 2. Reduce shut down time the same way

Had never been a problem. Push the button and walk away.

>>> 3. Manage running services in case a device is plugged in or has a
>>> problem and needs to restart

'service', 'chkconfig' and udev worked just fine for that, long before
systemd.

>>> 4. Finally make the relationships between running services clear

That should be a function of the services (sys v init handled this
just fine with a simple two-digit number.

The worst thing about systemd is that it completely violates the unix
philosophy of small, self-contained applications.

And it's just getting worse, taking over DNS and other run-time
services which it has no business being involved in.

>>>
>>>
>>
>> Won't get involved in wars, as I do use both and both work, though
>> all Linux here is pre systemd, or devuan.
>> However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far
>> more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native
>> zfs file system and yes, no systemd.
>
>Not sure why zfs is a big winner:
>
> ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by
> Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection
> against data corruption, support for high storage capacities,

It is an enterprise level filesystem.

>
>I was just reading about Fedora's new file system, XFS.

Hardly new. SGI ported XFS (another enterprise level
filesystem) to linux 20 years ago.

>I'm not facing any issues with ext4 though.
>
>For Fedora, I didn't like or need LVM so I turned it off.

I don't need or like systemd. Unfortunately, Fedora
and the server side (RHEL & derivatives) don't let you
turn it off.


Scott Lurndal

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 11:39:38 AM9/8/20
to
And it has no business handing DNS.

Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 11:44:52 AM9/8/20
to
Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:
>
>> In article <rj6ge8$jkq$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far
>>>> more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native
>>>> zfs file system and yes, no systemd.
>>>
>>> Not sure why zfs is a big winner:
>>>
>>> ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by
>>> Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection
>>> against data corruption, support for high storage capacities,
>>
>> ZFS is great. It handles all the complex disk management in a coherent
>> way. It handles combinations of RAID and disk mirroring and SSD caches
>> and and lets you efficiently create lots of logical partitions sharing
>> a pool of space, but with each partition having different compression,
>> filename rules, quotas, and so forth. It also lets you make snapshots
>> of a partition's state and efficiently roll forward and back which
>> makes backup and restore a lot easier.
>>
>> My FreeBSD server has four disks configured as two mirrored pairs in
>> one pool, with 58 logical partitions so I can manage each user or each
>> web site separately.
>
> Yeah, sorry, I was speaking with the home user blinders on.
> For my own use I have no use for an LVM and I disabled the one
> Fedora likes to turn on.

I tried it, because Fedora wanted to enable it by default. It caused so
much trouble I think I finally had to wipe the disk. At that point I
installed Ubuntu which, although not perfect, seems to be a better fit for
me. The thing is, I was familiar with a lot of LVM from using DFSMS on zOS,
and I still had trouble.

>
> I've got the system on a 128G SSD and /home on a 1TB SSD.
> 1TB seemed like a high storage capacity, but with many users
> I guess that's a drop in the bucket. I'm not sure where
> my storage would exceed system capacity.
>
> Backups are /home only to 2 USB sticks. I don't need to backup the
> system, if I lost it, I'd just get a new disk and reinstall.
>
> Fedora is pushing xfs, not sure how it's diffrent than ext4 but
> I get by with ext4 fine.
>

Works for me, too.

--
Pete

Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 11:44:52 AM9/8/20
to
John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> In article <rj6ge8$jkq$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far
>>> more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native
>>> zfs file system and yes, no systemd.
>>
>> Not sure why zfs is a big winner:
>>
>> ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by
>> Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection
>> against data corruption, support for high storage capacities,
>
> ZFS is great. It handles all the complex disk management in a coherent
> way. It handles combinations of RAID and disk mirroring and SSD caches
> and and lets you efficiently create lots of logical partitions sharing
> a pool of space, but with each partition having different compression,
> filename rules, quotas, and so forth. It also lets you make snapshots
> of a partition's state and efficiently roll forward and back which
> makes backup and restore a lot easier.
>
> My FreeBSD server has four disks configured as two mirrored pairs in
> one pool, with 58 logical partitions so I can manage each user or each
> web site separately.
>
> I happen to find FreeBSD's rc.d startup and shutdown scripts quite
> adequate but I realize I'm not going to win arguments with people who
> like systemd.
>

I’m agnostic. I just want my system to WORK.

--
Pete

Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 11:44:53 AM9/8/20
to
This was another problem I ran into. I was running a non-LTS version of
Ubuntu and was finally pushed to upgrade for some reason. and discovered
there was no upgrade from my release to anywhere; I had to reinstall.

--
Pete

Chris

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 11:48:25 AM9/8/20
to
While any fool can write a 2 page utility in C, big system
design only succeeds if ideas proven over decades are
followed. This includes ideas such as partitioning, where
the various subsystems are encapsulated and have a defined
call interface for the internal functions. The only
access to the internal functions are through the call
interface and the user needs to know nothing about the
internal code to use the capabilities. So long as the
call interface and functions remain the same, the internal
code can be modified or even completely rewritten with no
effect on the dependent calling services elsewhere.

From what I understand, systemd needs to have
extensive knowledge of all the subsystems it interacts
with, which creates a dependency minefield, already
a serious enough problem for Linux and yes, FreeBSD and
open source in general. It just adds complexity where
there is no need for it and the whole idea is just bad
software engineering. While vertical dependencies are
often unavoidable, horizontal ditto goes against every
tenet of good software engineering and very much against
the unix philosophy that made it so successful.

I mean, why should gnome, a gui, be dependent on systemd ?.
Then we have the log file problem, which are in binary
format. So how do I deal with that after a system crash ?
Normally, I would boot the distro, mount root and look at
the the text log files, simple, but just another layer
of complexity for it's own sake.

I do embedded hardware and s/w dev here and still
just scratching the surface of the os's in use even after
decades of use, but have bought the books to get some
insight into the internals. After decades, much of the
appraisal of new ideas can be a bit instinctive, but my
guess is that systemd will not survive long term and be
replaced by a something else that does the job properly
and without all the disruption. It's all incremental,
learn from mistakes, do it better next time...

Chris

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 11:54:33 AM9/8/20
to
I'm not sure what you mean by folding into it.

x> systemctl status '*login*'
systemd-logind.service - Login Service
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/systemd-logind.service; static; vendor preset: disabled)
Active: active (running) since Mon 2020-09-07 12:45:05 EDT; 22h ago
Docs: man:systemd-logind.service(8)
man:logind.conf(5)
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/multiseat
Main PID: 742 (systemd-logind)
Status: "Processing requests..."
Tasks: 1 (limit: 2306)
Memory: 1.9M
CPU: 12.370s
CGroup: /system.slice/systemd-logind.service
/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-logind

Sep 07 12:45:05 home.home systemd[1]: Starting Login Service...
Sep 07 12:45:05 home.home systemd-logind[742]: New seat seat0.
Sep 07 12:45:05 home.home systemd-logind[742]: Watching system buttons on /dev/input/event1 (Power Button)
Sep 07 12:45:05 home.home systemd-logind[742]: Watching system buttons on /dev/input/event0 (Power Button)
Sep 07 12:45:05 home.home systemd-logind[742]: Watching system buttons on /dev/input/event2 (AT Translated Set 2 keyboard)
Sep 07 12:45:05 home.home systemd[1]: Started Login Service.
Sep 07 12:45:19 home.home systemd-logind[742]: New session 1 of user dan.

Looks like a separate process.

Further searches:

https://yakking.branchable.com/posts/systemd-4-logind/

systemd has a service for managing user sessions called logind(8),
this replaces the existing ConsoleKit tool, which was the previous
cross-desktop and cross-distribution tool.

This caused some controversy, as logind(8) is not usable without
systemd, and the fear was that this would cause distributions to force
the use of systemd.

There was some misplaced anger at both the systemd developers and the
GNOME developers, when the GNOME package maintainers in Debian decided
to build GNOME without ConsoleKit support, as GNOME still supported
being built with ConsoleKit, and the systemd developers are not
responsible for other developers' decisions to support logind(8)
exclusively.

So is the issue that the new logind requires systemd?

I guess that's a problem for users that don't want systemd but don't
want to support their own logind.

--
Dan Espen

Chris

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 12:00:53 PM9/8/20
to
Ditto, and when something does go wrong, not have layers and layers of
opaque cross dependencies to debug it all...

Chris

Niklas Karlsson

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 12:01:51 PM9/8/20
to
On 2020-09-08, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, sorry, I was speaking with the home user blinders on.
>> For my own use I have no use for an LVM and I disabled the one
>> Fedora likes to turn on.
>
> I tried it, because Fedora wanted to enable it by default. It caused so
> much trouble I think I finally had to wipe the disk. At that point I
> installed Ubuntu which, although not perfect, seems to be a better fit for
> me. The thing is, I was familiar with a lot of LVM from using DFSMS on zOS,
> and I still had trouble.

I'm surprised. LVM on Linux has always been smooth sailing for me. Maybe
it gets dicier if you have to shrink a volume and file system, which
I've never really had to do.

LVM is convenient for me even at home, since I run one or more Linux
VMs. Should I run out of space, I can just hang another virtual disk on
it, add it to the volume group and then grow the LV and the file system
in one swell foop. Always worked nicely.

Niklas
--
Part of the survival techniques of driving in Massachusetts is to
allow the car to roll back an inch so that the driver behind you
thinks you're a dumb broad who can't drive and stays 5' away.
-- Barb Huizenga

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 12:12:29 PM9/8/20
to
Actually the sysv init scripts were never part of
the service they controlled. Distro writers provided them.
Systemd enhanced that relationship.

> From what I understand, systemd needs to have
> extensive knowledge of all the subsystems it interacts
> with,

Not true:

> cat /usr/lib/systemd/user/emacs.service
[Unit]
Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor

[Service]
Type=forking
ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon
ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)"
Restart=always

[Install]
WantedBy=default.target

...snip

> I mean, why should gnome, a gui, be dependent on systemd ?.

Already explained.

> Then we have the log file problem, which are in binary
> format. So how do I deal with that after a system crash ?
> Normally, I would boot the distro, mount root and look at
> the the text log files, simple, but just another layer
> of complexity for it's own sake.

Well, if you want to attack every project done by the
systemd developers go ahead.

The journal is not the init system.

So, what about the old log files?
Still there.

Try this:

journalctl -b -1

(system messages previous boot.)


Going to stop soon.

--
Dan Espen

Chris

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 12:18:42 PM9/8/20
to
No, ,the issue is that the systemd implementation takes away choice,
our way the highway, when the whole point of open source is about
choice and openness.

I don't normally attribute malfeasance where incompetence is more
likely, but if you wanted to make a system more, rather than less
opaque, then systemd would be the ideal solution...

Chris


Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 12:33:19 PM9/8/20
to
Yes. The days of CP/M users “hacking the BIOS”, or whatever it was, for fun
are over for most of us. I mostly use my computer as a tool, although I use
it to develop software. I want the system to fade into the background and
not need constant upgrades and tweaks.

I know some people enjoy customizing and playing with their systems, but
I’ve done too many installs to bother with things like custom fonts and
wallpaper. I have a set of tools that work and just stick with them.
>
> Chris
>



--
Pete

Peter Flass

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 12:33:20 PM9/8/20
to
Niklas Karlsson <ank...@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2020-09-08, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, sorry, I was speaking with the home user blinders on.
>>> For my own use I have no use for an LVM and I disabled the one
>>> Fedora likes to turn on.
>>
>> I tried it, because Fedora wanted to enable it by default. It caused so
>> much trouble I think I finally had to wipe the disk. At that point I
>> installed Ubuntu which, although not perfect, seems to be a better fit for
>> me. The thing is, I was familiar with a lot of LVM from using DFSMS on zOS,
>> and I still had trouble.
>
> I'm surprised. LVM on Linux has always been smooth sailing for me. Maybe
> it gets dicier if you have to shrink a volume and file system, which
> I've never really had to do.

Maybe that was it. I think I had a full-disk LV and wanted to partition it.
I recall having to edit the LVM definitions by hand to get the system to
work at all, and at that point I decided it wasn’t worth it.

>
> LVM is convenient for me even at home, since I run one or more Linux
> VMs. Should I run out of space, I can just hang another virtual disk on
> it, add it to the volume group and then grow the LV and the file system
> in one swell foop. Always worked nicely.
>
> Niklas



--
Pete

Chris

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 12:33:25 PM9/8/20
to
On 09/08/20 17:12, Dan Espen wrote:


>>> I guess I wasn't clear.
>>>
>>> The window managers packaged as a 'desktop' tend to be the ones that
>>> change all the time and bounce around.

That is really surreal :-).

>>>
>>> If you pick one of the more traditional window managers nothing
>>> will bounce around or change without you wanting it to.
>>>
>>> My main experience is with Fvwm. Maybe other window managers are
>>> different. Another poster mentioned a twm variant. Very stable,
>>> no bouncing.
>>>

Fvwm isn't that bad, iirc, ran it on Suse at one stage, but mate and
xfce4 are more up to date.
How is that in any way relevant ?. Doesn't explain the underlying
tech, which might be enlightening.

>
>> I mean, why should gnome, a gui, be dependent on systemd ?.
>
> Already explained.

Don't remember seeing any explanation as to why it needs
systemd.

>
>> Then we have the log file problem, which are in binary
>> format. So how do I deal with that after a system crash ?
>> Normally, I would boot the distro, mount root and look at
>> the the text log files, simple, but just another layer
>> of complexity for it's own sake.
>
> Well, if you want to attack every project done by the
> systemd developers go ahead.
>
> The journal is not the init system.
>
> So, what about the old log files?
> Still there.
>
> Try this:
>
> journalctl -b -1
>
> (system messages previous boot.)

So why do we need journalctl(), never heard of it. What's wrong
with more /var/log/messages, or tail /var/log/messages, or
even dmesg ?. Plain text, no less.

>
>
> Going to stop soon.

Judging by the comments elsewhere, you might just lose
this debate, but that's democracy for you. You like it,
fine, keep using it...

Chris

>

Chris

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 12:53:22 PM9/8/20
to
On 09/05/20 20:57, gareth evans wrote:
> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
> provided products to help you control your computer, but
> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
> computer.
>
> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
> I buy will be LINUX based.
>
> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft
> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in
> driving me away.

Pulling it back on topic :-)...

I wouldn't touch Wimdoze 10 with yours, if you will excuse the
expression and we have just one win7 desktop in the house, on
a separate subnet. Use the server version for the lab desktop,
only upgrading to 2008 from 2003 last year, when it became old
enough to be affordable on Ebay. Still getting updates as well,
but ignore much of that.

What I do like about ws2008 (~win 7) is that all services other
than essential are turned off by default and have to be enabled.
They also did a fair job with the system management tools as
well, though the myriad of options takes time to wade through.
Finally, there's an nfs client included, that just needs to be
enabled. Server as well if you need it. An essential since the
lab server and much else are all unix or variant. Much better
os than any of the home user versions...

Chris

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 1:41:29 PM9/8/20
to
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> I’ve done too many installs to bother with things like custom fonts and
> wallpaper.

Speaking of wallpaper...

Can this develop into another war? I don't see how.

Just folklore.

I'm a big fan of an image on the root.
But then my common mode of operation is to iconify a window then switch
to another window. So I see the root a lot.

I want an image there, but I've never found an image that I'd want to
stare at day after day.

So, I did this at work and it was a pretty popular feature of the Sun
workstation users that used the environment I established.

I wanted attractive images but I didn't want to get bored. So I
endeavored to download lots of images and have the computer change the
image every hour. APOD was a good source, but I found images in lots of
places. I wanted enough images that the viewer would pretty much forget
the image from the last viewing.

Unix has a lot of programs that can put an image on the root but none of
the images fit exactly. Some needed to be stretched one way, some the
other. Some actually looked better tiled over the background.

So, I created a file called "root.commands", each line in the file
contained a command that displayed an image in the best way.
I added a comment at the end of the command that categorized the image,
like 'space far', 'flower rose', 'joke', 'Train', 'SciFi'.

Then I wrote a command called 'calc.next' that looked in the file,
and another file, 'current.line' and computed the next line to display.
Comments in root.commands were ignored, and the count wrapped around
when the end of the file was reached. That was executed by each user under
control of cron a few minutes before the background change.

Another command 'do.next' just used 'current.line' to find and execute
the command from root.commands. That was in everyone's cron too.

So, that worked pretty well until I added a user that got really upset
by some of the images, especially some of the dragon artwork.

So, I updated calc.next to look into the users '.rootshow' file
for include/bypass rules. This user settled on flowers only.

Then a few more tweaks. We had employee children visit the site
in their costumes every Halloween. I modified the "great rootshow"
to show only Halloween images on Halloween or the weekday before
Halloween.

Lastly I auto-generated Fvwm menus using the comments for categories.
That was quite a bit of menus. There were over a thousand lines
in root commands. That way a user could look for and display
an image by its category if the mood took him.

Sadly, all those Sun Workstation users are now relegated to
Windows boxes so the Great Rootshow only lives on on my desktop.


--
Dan Espen

Dan Espen

unread,
Sep 8, 2020, 1:47:11 PM9/8/20
to
Gnome contains tools that manage your services.

>>> Then we have the log file problem, which are in binary
>&