[CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
260 messages Options
1234567 ... 13
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[CentOS] Y2K not - Re: Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Robert Moskowitz

On 07/08/2014 12:51 PM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>>> Les, this is the wrong question to ask.  The question I ask is 'What
>>> will be my return on investment be, in potentially lower costs, to run
>>> my programs in a different way?'  If there is no ROI, or a really long
>>> ROI, well, I still have C6 to run until 2020 while I invest the time in
>>> determining if a new way is better or not.  Fact is that all of the
>>> major Linux distributions are going this way; do you really think all of
>>> them would change if this change were stupid?
>> Yes. Look at Microsoft and Windows 8 and a similar attitude of "get over
>> it, and just buy it". I'm not surprised that the head developer
>        Apple is guilty of that too.
> Consistency is not the only goal.  Efficiency should trump consistency,
>> I am darn sick and tired about hearing of "efficiency". Efficiency does
>> not 100% translate to effective productivity. Furthermore, user
>> satisfaction is not counted into efficiency. I have heard people complain
>> about air conditioners with extremely high efficiencies. The problem is
>> that they don't put out much cold air. If the product is ineffective,
>> very hard to work with, but efficient...I'd far rather use something much
>> less cumbersome and effective but being less efficient. That translates
>> to higher productivity and satisfaction, which you really want.
>> Effectiveness and satisfaction should go hand in hand with efficiency,
>> every time.
>>
>        I think you are making the case for maintainability.  Efficiency
> is in a certain way what brought the Y2K bug. I'll take
> maintainability over efficiency any day if I can (design constrains)
> even if I was writing a game.

Nope I was there when we did the year 80 conversion going from single
digit years to two digit years.  We just did not have the capacity and
we counted every byte in a record.  We did Julian date format on tape
and did the conversion for display to save another byte.  Efficiency?  
We were desperate for every byte we could squeeze out.  the US Post
Office created a standard so that all US cities (and supposedly streets)
could be entered in 14 characters or less.  We changed the abbreviation
of Nebraska from NB to NE (I remember writing that conversion program)
so we could more easily mix US and Canada addresses (those they would
not change their 6 character code to our 5 digit one).  We burned CPU to
save storage. then rewrote key routines in assembler and hacked the
COBOL calls to make it all work.

Things change.  Design  goals change.  Systems have to change.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Les Mikesell
In reply to this post by Lamar Owen
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 11:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> ... How much is this going to cost a typical company _just_ to keep
>> their existing programs working the same way over the next decade
>> (which is a relatively short time in terms of business-process changes)?
>
> Les, this is the wrong question to ask.  The question I ask is 'What
> will be my return on investment be, in potentially lower costs, to run
> my programs in a different way?'

But the answer is still the same.  It's sort of the same as asking
that about getting a shiny new car with a different door size that
won't carry your old stuff without changes and then still won't do it
any better.   Our services take all the hardware can do and a lot of
startup initialization on their own.  Saving a fraction of a second of
system time starting them is never going to be a good tradeoff for
needing additional engineer training time on how to port them between
two different versions of the same OS.

> If there is no ROI, or a really long
> ROI, well, I still have C6 to run until 2020 while I invest the time in
> determining if a new way is better or not.

So a deferred cost doesn't matter to you?   You aren't young enough to
still think that 6 years is a long time away, are you?

> Fact is that all of the
> major Linux distributions are going this way; do you really think all of
> them would change if this change were stupid?

Yes, Linux distributions do a lot of things I consider stupid.  Take
the difficulty of maintaining real video drivers as an example.

> Even the Unix philosophy was new at one point.  Just because it works
> doesn't mean it's the best that can be found.

Re-using things that work may not be best, but if everyone is
continually forced to re-implement them, they will never get a chance
to do what is best.   In terms of your ROI question, you should be
asking if that is the best use of your time.

>> Even if the changes themselves are minor, you have to cover the cost
>> of paying some number of people for that 'get used to the syntax'
>> step. Personally I think Red Hat did everyone a disservice by
>> splitting the development side off to fedora and divorcing it from the
>> enterprise users that like the consistency.
>
> Consistency is not the only goal.

But that's why we are here using an 'enterprise' release, not
rebuilding gentoo every day.

> Efficiency should trump consistency,

Efficiency comes from following standards so components are reusable
and can be layered on top of each other. Then you can focus on making
the least efficient part better and spend your time where it will make
a difference. Adding options to increase efficiency is great - as long
as you don't break backwards compatibility.

> and I for one like being able to see where the direction lies well in
> advance of EL adopting a feature blind.  Or don't you remember how Red
> Hat Linux development used to be before Fedora and the openness of that
> process?

Yes, I remember it worked fantastically well up through at least RH7 -
which was pretty much compatible with CentOS3.   That was back when
people actually using the systems contributed their fixes directly.
I had a couple of 4+ year uptime runs on a system with RH7 + updates -
and only shut it down to move it once.

--
   Les Mikesell
     [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

mark-3
In reply to this post by Scott Robbins
Scott Robbins wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:27:41AM -0400, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Scott Robbins wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:09:49PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> >> On 08.07.2014 13:57, Scott Robbins wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Very true. I do remember Adam Williamson of Fedora commenting on their
>> > forums that he pictured many of the complainers about various changes,
>> > including systemd, to be old white guys, which fit me to a T.
>> <snip>
>> So he's guilty of ageism, as well as aggressively NIH (Not Invented
>> Here), and a faddist.... Did he actually have any *good*, persuasive
reasons

>> for such changes?
>
> Wow.  This was my bad in assuming everyone knows who Adam is--a very good
> natured and helpful person.  He was formerly with Mandriva, I think, and
> came to Fedora where he has made enormous strides in seeing things from
> the user standpoint, getting bugs filed, making Fedora a much better
> distribution (and better documented), than it had been.  My statement's
> implication, though of course, tongue in cheek, was that Even Adam
> thinks....
>
> So, for any friends or fans of Adam on this list, I apologize if that came
> out as a putdown or anything more than a jesting complaint.

The only idea of him I have is from this thread, and I have formed an
opinion headed *way* down in a nosedive from "not very high". And I know
how other feminists feel when someone makes a sexist comment that they
think is a throwaway line... but question where the line came from in
their subconscious, and how it affects their attitude to what they're
doing.

And to expand on my agreement with Les, sounds like he only talks to other
fedora folks... and doesn't get out of his own little circle of admirers.

         mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Andrew Wyatt
In reply to this post by Robert Moskowitz
>
>
> <snip>Then that grey headed guy or gal
> gentlely leads the Q&A into a critical edge case that completely breaks
> the proposal.  </snip>


When you do that to a certain developer you get banned from a certain G+
feed for make believe "personal attacks" because changing the conversation
is much simpler than acknowledging a design flaw.

Kids these days!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

mark-3
In reply to this post by Lamar Owen
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 12:06 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
<snip>
> There are alot of possibilities here, if you're willing to think outside
> the 1970's timesharing minicomputer box that gave rise to the historical
> Unix philosophy.  And this has nothing to do with Windows; I have been a
> primarily-Linux user since 1997.

ROTFLMAO! And can you explain the difference between "cloud" and
"time-sharing on a mainframe"?

        mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Andrew Wyatt
In reply to this post by Les Mikesell
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Les Mikesell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > This is an unfortunate problem in the community today, anyone who
> disagrees
> > with status-quo is "just an antique", it's insulting to say the least.
>  It
> > doesn't matter our experience, we're just "causing trouble" because we
> > "don't want change" which is an excuse that isn't even remotely true.
> >  Eventually when all these "old guys" leave, all that will be left are
> the
> > inexperienced kids and that's when the real problems will begin to
> surface.
>
> The people promoting change most like do not have a large installed
> base of their own complex programming to maintain or any staff to
> retrain.
>

They likely don't, if they did they would gain the experience to know
better.  Fortunately, we have CentOS 6 which still has a lot of life left
in it.


>
> >  There are a few good reasons to adopt systemd, but the bad outweigh the
> > good in my opinion.
>
> My opinion is that if a new system is really better, then it should be
> capable of handling everything the previous standard did
> transparently.   If it can't, then it's not really better.  It is just
> different.
>

I agree, completely.  Who would replace the hood of a car with half a hood?
 It might have really awesome flames painted on it, but at the end of the
day it's still half a hood.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

John R Pierce
In reply to this post by Lamar Owen
On 7/8/2014 9:25 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Physical servers can be told to skip certain parts of their POST,
> especially the memory test.  Memory tests are redundant with ECC.

but, you HAVE to zero ALL of memory with ECC to initialize it.

--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Y2K not - Re: Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Gilbert Sebenste
In reply to this post by Robert Moskowitz
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

> and did the conversion for display to save another byte.  Efficiency?
> We were desperate for every byte we could squeeze out.  the US Post
> Office created a standard so that all US cities (and supposedly streets)
> could be entered in 14 characters or less.  We changed the abbreviation
> of Nebraska from NB to NE (I remember writing that conversion program)
> so we could more easily mix US and Canada addresses (those they would
> not change their 6 character code to our 5 digit one).  We burned CPU to
> save storage. then rewrote key routines in assembler and hacked the
> COBOL calls to make it all work.
>
> Things change.  Design  goals change.  Systems have to change.

Of course they do. And those were changes in efficiency that were the
result of needed productivity improvements. Change for the sake of
major improvement(s). Wonderful, well-designed, efficient AND necessary.
And it obviously made things more productive for everyone!

I argue that systemd neither improves efficiency, productivity or
satisfaction...nor is it necessary.

Gilbert

*******************************************************************************
Gilbert Sebenste                                                    ********
(My opinions only!)                                                  ******
*******************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Les Mikesell
In reply to this post by Lamar Owen
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Lamar Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Memory tests are redundant with ECC. (I
> know; I have an older SuperMicro server here that passes memory testing
> in POST but throws nearly continuous ECC errors in operation; it does
> operate, though).  If it fails during spinup, flag the failure while
> spinning up another server.

I don't think that is generally true.  I've seen several IBM systems
disable memory during POST and come up running will a smaller amount.

> Virtual servers have no need of POST (they also don't save as much
> power; although dynamic load balancing can do some predictive heuristics
> and spin up host hypervisors as needed and do live migration of server
> processes dynamically).

Our services that need scaling need all of the hardware capability and
aren't virtualized.   That might change someday...

> To detect failures early, spin up every server in a rotating sequence
> with a testing instance, and skip POST entirely.
>
> If you have to, spin up the server in a stateless mode and put it to
> sleep.  Then wake it up with dynamic state.

Our servers tend to just run till they die.  If we didn't need them we
wouldn't have bought them in the first place.  I suppose there are
businesses with different processes that come and go, but I'm not sure
that is desirable.

> Long POSTs need to go away, with better fault tolerance after spinup
> being far more desirable, much like the promise of the old as dirt
> Tandem NonStop system. (I say the 'promise' rather than the
> 'implementation' for a reason.....).

If you need load balancing anyway you just run enough spares to cover
the failures.

--
   Les Mikesell
      [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Bruce Ferrell
In reply to this post by Russell Miller
On 07/08/2014 08:05 AM, Russell Miller wrote:

> On Jul 8, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> and the next one talking before try to get informations
>> there is no monolithic daemon damned
>>
>> there is one project with one source tree maintaining
>> a lot of daemons and binaries - so be quite before
>> you tried to learn some basics
> Generally when people get personal I figure I must have hit a nerve.
>
> I must have hit a nerve.
>
> I didn't say it was windows-like.  I said it was more windows-like than I was
> comfortable with.   Even with multiple daemons, It's still not very transparent,
> somewhat incomrehensible, documented poorly while still managing to have
> voluminous documentation, dumps stuff everywhere, and is just generally
> annoying.
>
> Even its sysv compatibility is incomplete.  It runs sysv scripts, but in such a
> way as to break any but the simplest.  I've run into situations where I've actually
> had to make a systemd unit because it broke the script, and I couldn't fix it.  The
> script was fine, ran perfectly if you just ran it, and systemd did... *something*...
> to it.  I still haven't figured out what.  And debugging is an absolute pain.
>
> And that's all I'm saying in response to you.  Keep this up
> and my killfile will have one more entry.
>
>

On OpenSUSE, my trick for "disabling" systemd in the init script, is to rename systemctl at the start and put it back at the end.  There is an included script (functions) look for
it and if not found allows good ol' sysV to do it's thing.  I expect It's done the same way for RHEL/Centos.

Just sayin'




_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Steve Clark
In reply to this post by mark-3
On 07/08/2014 01:11 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On 07/08/2014 11:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> ... How much is this going to cost a typical company _just_ to keep
>>> their existing programs working the same way over the next decade
>>> (which is a relatively short time in terms of business-process changes)?
>> Les, this is the wrong question to ask.  The question I ask is 'What
>> will be my return on investment be, in potentially lower costs, to run
>> my programs in a different way?'  If there is no ROI, or a really long
> No, it's *not* the wrong question. Are you going to figure ROI INCLUDING
> all the a) reworking, b) retraining (oh, that's right, almost *no* one
> pays for training, other than on-the-jop or take your own lunch brown
> bags) in the costs? And how 'bout how long it's going to recoup those
> up-front costs (or where you planning on hiring all new people anyway?),
> and will there be *another* change coming along in five years...?
>
>> ROI, well, I still have C6 to run until 2020 while I invest the time in
>> determining if a new way is better or not.  Fact is that all of the
>> major Linux distributions are going this way; do you really think all of
>> them would change if this change were stupid?
> May I point to upstart, and that it lasted a few years, before folks
> decided it was a Bad Idea? How many years of systemd do we have to compare
> and contrast?
Unfortunately the way systemd has intertwined itself into to so much more that just
system startup, it could be around for a long time.

>>> Even if the changes themselves are minor, you have to cover the cost
>>> of paying some number of people for that 'get used to the syntax'
>>> step. Personally I think Red Hat did everyone a disservice by
>>> splitting the development side off to fedora and divorcing it from the
>>> enterprise users that like the consistency.
> YES!!!!!!!!! Let fedora duke it out with ubuntu; give us a *work* o/s.
>> Consistency is not the only goal.  Efficiency should trump consistency,
> Wrong. I *STRONGLY* disagree. Efficiency should be a goal off consistency,
> and consistency should not be highly inefficient. However, as I've
> mentioned before, when I go home after a hard day administering a
> hundred-plus-many servers and workstations to my own workstation at home,
> I do *NOT* want to debug my o/s. (And I'm putting off trying to upgrade my
> router's DD-WRT, in the hope that I'll find something less buggy with USB
> printer support).
> <snip>
>
>         mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: [hidden email]
http://www.netwolves.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Robert Moskowitz
In reply to this post by mark-3

On 07/08/2014 01:19 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On 07/08/2014 12:06 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> <snip>
>> There are alot of possibilities here, if you're willing to think outside
>> the 1970's timesharing minicomputer box that gave rise to the historical
>> Unix philosophy.  And this has nothing to do with Windows; I have been a
>> primarily-Linux user since 1997.
> ROTFLMAO! And can you explain the difference between "cloud" and
> "time-sharing on a mainframe"?

Yes I can.  I did/do both.  There are many things I do not like about
'cloud' and the security ones are going to be tough nuts to work out.  
But it is the way computing is dividing up.  I like the isolation of
ownership and risks that 'cloud' enables.

I did time-sharing on a MARK-IV.  I don't miss it.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Always Learning-3
In reply to this post by mark-3

On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 13:19 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:


> ROTFLMAO! And can you explain the difference between "cloud" and
> "time-sharing on a mainframe"?

75 baud on a TTY (clank, clank, clank, ding, thud as the printer head
returned to the beginning of the line) and an amazingly fast speed of
300 baud on the up-market Terminet (? spelling).

Perhaps the speeds were 300 and 1,200 baud? It was a long time ago.

Those were the days.


--
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.

   Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office.
   Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
In reply to this post by Ned Slider
On 08.07.2014 15:53, Ned Slider wrote:

> On 08/07/14 14:14, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> On 08.07.2014 14:58, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2014 04:22 AM, Always Learning wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 20:46 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/07/2014 07:47 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>>>>>> Reading about systemd, it seems it is not well liked and reminiscent of
>>>>>> Microsoft's "put everything into the Windows Registry" (Win 95 onwards).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a practical alternative to omnipresent, or invasive, systemd ?
>>>>
>>>>> So you are following the thread on the Fedora list?  I have been
>>>>> ignoring it.
>>>>
>>>> No. I read some of
>>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_topic&q=systemd
>>>>
>>>> The systemd proponent, advocate and chief developer? wants to
>>>> abolish /etc and /var in favour of having the /etc and /var data
>>>> in /usr.
>>> err.. what? even on that wild fedora thread this did not come up!!!
>>>
>>> i will presume that you understood well your information source and you
>>> are actually know what you are referring to ... so, could you elaborate
>>> more about this?(with some references)
>>> i use systemd for some time (and i keep myslef informed about it) and i
>>> would need to know in time about this kind of change..
>>
>> There are no plans to "abolish" /etc and /var.
>>
>> The idea is that rather than say proftpd shipping a default config file
>> /etc/proftpd.conf that you then have to edit for you needs instead it
>> will ship the default config somewhere in /usr and let the config in
>> /etc override the one in /usr. That way if you want to "factory reset"
>> the system you can basically clear out /etc and you are back do the
>> defaults. The same applies to /var.
>> The idea is that /etc and /var become "site-local" directories that only
>> contain the config you actually changed from the defaults for this system.
>>
>> Since you already have experience with systemd you are already familiar
>> with this system where it stores its unit files in /usr/lib/systemd and
>> if you want to change some of them you copy them to /etc/systemd and
>> change them there. Same principle.
>>
>> /etc and /var will stay as valid as ever though and are not being
>> "abolished".
>>
>
> That's not always true.
>
> Some configs that were under /etc on el6 must now reside under /usr on el7.
>
> Take modprobe blacklists for example.
>
> On el5 and el6 they are in /etc/modprobe.d/
>
> On el7 they need to be in /usr/lib/modprobe.d/
>
> If you install modprobe blacklists to the old location under el7 they
> will not work.
>
> I'm sure there are other examples, this is just one example I've
> happened to run into.

You might want to report this as a bug. The modprobe and modprobe.d man
pages explicitly reference "/etc/modprobe.d/*.conf" for the configuration.

Regards,
  Dennis

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Y2K not - Re: Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Les Mikesell
In reply to this post by Gilbert Sebenste
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> and did the conversion for display to save another byte.  Efficiency?
>> We were desperate for every byte we could squeeze out.  the US Post
>> Office created a standard so that all US cities (and supposedly streets)
>> could be entered in 14 characters or less.  We changed the abbreviation
>> of Nebraska from NB to NE (I remember writing that conversion program)
>> so we could more easily mix US and Canada addresses (those they would
>> not change their 6 character code to our 5 digit one).  We burned CPU to
>> save storage. then rewrote key routines in assembler and hacked the
>> COBOL calls to make it all work.
>>
>> Things change.  Design  goals change.  Systems have to change.
>
> Of course they do. And those were changes in efficiency that were the
> result of needed productivity improvements. Change for the sake of
> major improvement(s). Wonderful, well-designed, efficient AND necessary.
> And it obviously made things more productive for everyone!
>
> I argue that systemd neither improves efficiency, productivity or
> satisfaction...nor is it necessary.

More to the point, those 'old' efficiency hacks were from a time when
programmer time was cheaper than the computer resources.   Now, the
computers should be doing the work for us instead of the other way
around.  Can anyone really make the argument that we can't afford the
computer resources for transparent backwards compatibility now?

--
   Les Mikesell
     [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Original Woodchuck
In reply to this post by mark-3
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:19:58PM -0400, [hidden email] wrote:

> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > On 07/08/2014 12:06 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> <snip>
> > There are alot of possibilities here, if you're willing to think outside
> > the 1970's timesharing minicomputer box that gave rise to the historical
> > Unix philosophy.  And this has nothing to do with Windows; I have been a
> > primarily-Linux user since 1997.
>
> ROTFLMAO! And can you explain the difference between "cloud" and
> "time-sharing on a mainframe"?
>
>         mark

Mainframes are housed in vaults with powerful airconditioners; operators
walk around with 132-column fanfold printouts.  Operators may have
goatees.

Clouds are housed in vaults with powerful airconditioners; operators
walk around with little gadgets.  Operators may have goatees.

Dave
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT - Re: Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Steve Clark
In reply to this post by Robert Moskowitz
On 07/08/2014 12:55 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 12:44 PM, Hal Wigoda wrote:
>> You aren't old.
> And I am a young 21.  three times over.  All that means is I have to
> learn new stuff now 3 times to get it right!  As some people on this
> list will attest to :)
>
> Soon I will be 26 (2^6).  So that means that I have to then learn
> everything 6 times!

Hmm... well soon I will be 26 + 4.

> Age is what you make of it.  Senior moments are to be cherished. ;)'
>
>> (Sent from iPhone, so please accept my apologies in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors.)
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:49 AM, Russell Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That presumes that your conservative attitude is the majority opinion
>>>> though. Systemd is one of the features that I have been looking forward
>>>> to in CentOS 7 because of the new capabilities it provides so while this
>>>> will surely drive some people away it will actually attract others and
>>>> if you think that this will lead to some sort of great exodus then I
>>>> think you are mistaken. Not everybody is this uncomfortable with change.
>>>>
>>> For the record, I'm not uncomfortable with change.  I'm uncomfortable with stupid,
>>> poorly thought out, monolithic change that ignores half a century of the UNIX philosophy.
>>> And creating a daemon that tries to handle everything but the kitchen sink and implementing
>>> it in such a way as to make it nearly incomprehensible to me certainly qualifies
>>> as that type of change.
>>>
>>> Sysvinit may not be perfect, but it's UNIX.  Systemd is...  a lot of things, but more
>>> of a windows-like solution than I"m comfortable with.  It's just dumb.  Surely there could
>>> have been a better way of accomplishing their goals without creating the equivalent of
>>> Cartman's Trapper Keeper.
>>>


--
Stephen Clark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Bruce Ferrell
In reply to this post by Always Learning-3
On 07/08/2014 10:36 AM, Always Learning wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 13:19 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>
>> ROTFLMAO! And can you explain the difference between "cloud" and
>> "time-sharing on a mainframe"?
> 75 baud on a TTY (clank, clank, clank, ding, thud as the printer head
> returned to the beginning of the line) and an amazingly fast speed of
> 300 baud on the up-market Terminet (? spelling).
>
> Perhaps the speeds were 300 and 1,200 baud? It was a long time ago.
>
> Those were the days.
>

110 and 300 Bps. (model 35 and 33)

75  and 50 Baud was 5 level code (model 15, 19, 28 and 32)

There was never a 1200 Bps gearset

I'm an ex teletype mechanic.... Springs, levers, cams and electromagnets.  That was my door to telecom and ultimately to computers.



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

mark-3
In reply to this post by Always Learning-3
Always Learning wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 13:19 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>> ROTFLMAO! And can you explain the difference between "cloud" and
>> "time-sharing on a mainframe"?
>
> 75 baud on a TTY (clank, clank, clank, ding, thud as the printer head
> returned to the beginning of the line) and an amazingly fast speed of
> 300 baud on the up-market Terminet (? spelling).
>
> Perhaps the speeds were 300 and 1,200 baud? It was a long time ago.
>
> Those were the days.

I was dialing in from work to upload homework at 300 baud, around '84.
When I got my first modem for my first real PC (we'll skip the CoCo), *I*
had 1200 baud. *nyah*

But between 1978, when I went back to college, and '81 or os, a year into
my first programming job, I was on punch cards; then it was the shared
three terminals in the hall. Originally, a 370-168 timeshare, then, after
we won the lottery to get it nine months before most everyone, we had our
4300. And we had *real* line printers.....

But I say there *ain't* no differmenints. You'se is gots your share, we
had VM regions.....

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Y2K not - Re: Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?

Veli-Pekka Kestilä
In reply to this post by Les Mikesell
On 8.7.2014 20:45, Les Mikesell wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>
>>> and did the conversion for display to save another byte.  Efficiency?
>>> We were desperate for every byte we could squeeze out.  the US Post
>>> Office created a standard so that all US cities (and supposedly streets)
>>> could be entered in 14 characters or less.  We changed the abbreviation
>>> of Nebraska from NB to NE (I remember writing that conversion program)
>>> so we could more easily mix US and Canada addresses (those they would
>>> not change their 6 character code to our 5 digit one).  We burned CPU to
>>> save storage. then rewrote key routines in assembler and hacked the
>>> COBOL calls to make it all work.
>>>
>>> Things change.  Design  goals change.  Systems have to change.
>> Of course they do. And those were changes in efficiency that were the
>> result of needed productivity improvements. Change for the sake of
>> major improvement(s). Wonderful, well-designed, efficient AND necessary.
>> And it obviously made things more productive for everyone!
>>
>> I argue that systemd neither improves efficiency, productivity or
>> satisfaction...nor is it necessary.
> More to the point, those 'old' efficiency hacks were from a time when
> programmer time was cheaper than the computer resources.   Now, the
> computers should be doing the work for us instead of the other way
> around.  Can anyone really make the argument that we can't afford the
> computer resources for transparent backwards compatibility now?
>

Yes. Computers have probably resources, but programmers time is
expensive (or when doing it in your own time it isn't fun to do) so
thats why people aren't implementing them.

-vpk

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
1234567 ... 13