4 ms·

Are you out of your mind? Or do you just not understand what you're saying? Adding an interface to PS to get this info natively is good. But Lennart has a magic

Are you out of your mind? Or do you just not understand what you're saying? Adding an interface to PS to get this info natively is good. But Lennart has a magic ability to get everything wrong, and he's NOT messing with my fstab any more than he already has.

kuschku 10y ago
Then which audio system is simple to set up AND allows per-program volume, effects, etc? Which init system "just works" without requiring me to copy and modify a hacky init script from stackoverflow? Lennarts products are controversial, but they’re the classical "least worst" options.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  >Then which audio system is simple to set up AND allows per-program volume, effects, etc? JACK >Which init system "just works" without requiring me to copy and modify a hacky init script from stackoverflow? s6, runit, bsdinit (yes, really). >Lennarts products are controversial, but they’re the classical "least worst" options. No, they're ugly, broken messes that look nice. Systemd is a monster. If it was an init system, I wouldn't complain, but it's not. It's an init system that's also a cron replacement, a syslog replacement, an automount replacement, a docker replacement, a consolekit replacement, steadily gaining a tight integration with udev, overcomplicates everything it touches (we need a hostname daemon now?), provides libraries to high-level userland that are DELIBERATELY POSIX incompatible, promotes binary formats for no reason, flies in the face of tradition for no reason and breaking code (screen sessions die now), overcomplicates PID1, increasing the chances of a kernel panic, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Systemd is a tiny step forward, followed by a massive step back, and of you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > JACK > simple to set up Try getting it to run with basically anything, seriously. Pulseaudio is plug-and-play. > Which init system "just works" Neither of the ones you mention fit that description > It's an init system that's also a cron replacement Wrong. SystemD is a project with a similar branding issue that KDE has. Systemd is a project. It develops a set of libraries. And, on top of that, an init system. And a cron replacement. And a syslog replacement. You do not need to use them together – just like you can use Gtk apps in a KDE environment – but together everything works best. > for no reason and breaking code (screen sessions die now) For the reason that shutting down my PC means it spends 10 minutes waiting for screen sessions to kill themselves, and I can not stop that without either doing a killall, alt-print-reisub, or just pulling the plug? It also provides a way to keep things running still. > increasing the chances of a kernel panic Never had one, and I’m running bleeding-edge arch > Systemd is a tiny step forward, followed by a massive step back, and of you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention. Systemd is the least worst option. There is not much of an alternative for such a kind of project, that properly handles things in a more modern way. I want a userland that works plug-and-play, I want syslog as a daemon with database, not as a fucking flat file. I want more dbus, and, ideally, I’d have all config files in a database or registry for easier administration and sync. I want proper udev and containerization, I want programs of my user to be killed upon logout unless specified otherwise. Lennarts projects don’t provide what the old crowd of nerds want. But they provide what the average user want, and what’s required to make Linux actually usable for your sister, your grandmother, and your retarded neighbor that can’t even turn on a PC. It also reduces the workload for server admins, like me, again. I can write systemd unit files in a few minutes, can easily stream syslog over the network from multiple servers and aggregate, I can easily handle namespacing of software.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      >I can write systemd unit files in a few minutes, can easily stream syslog over the network from multiple servers and aggregate, I can easily handle namespacing of software. You could do 2 of those three things already (syslog and namespacing), and bsdinit init files aren't hard to right. >Systemd is a project. >It develops a set of libraries. >And, on top of that, an init system. >And a cron replacement. >And a syslog replacement. >You do not need to use them together – just like you can use Gtk apps in a KDE environment – but together everything works best. That's BS. A lot of it's all one executable. >I want a userland that works plug-and-play, I want syslog as a daemon with database, not as a fucking flat file. I want more dbus, and, ideally, I’d have all config files in a database or registry for easier administration and sync. Well, if you want Windows, you know where to find it. But stop trying to turn my UNIX into it. >I want programs of my user to be killed upon logout unless specified otherwise. Well, you're in an EXTREME minority. >But they provide what the average user want, and what’s required to make Linux actually usable for your sister, your grandmother, and your retarded neighbor that can’t even turn on a PC. ...and if you think "the year of linux on the desktop" is ever coming, you're delusional. Besides, Ubuntu had a reasonable UX for that audience long before systemd came around. >I can write systemd unit files in a few minutes, can easily stream syslog over the network from multiple servers and aggregate, I can easily handle namespacing of software. Software namespacing doesn't require systemd. Syslog streaming has been a thing for a long time. And BSDinit, s6-rc, runit, openrc, sheperd, nosh, systemXVI, perp, watchman, and a variety of other init systems exist that make writing unit files easy. Many of them predate systemd.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        > That's BS. A lot of it's all one executable. That’s not even true if you use the packages for debian or redhat. In both cases, it’s over a dozen packages for systemds independent projects, and you can replace each of them seperately, if you wish to. I’ve done so in the past on a server where I couldn’t update everything because it was an old-style containerized VPS with shared kernel. > Well, if you want Windows, you know where to find it. But stop trying to turn my UNIX into it. > Well, you're in an EXTREME minority. Then go and use UNIX, aka BSD. This is the linux world, and most people want it – as seen in the countless times when distro maintainers held a vote pro or con systemd. > ...and if you think "the year of linux on the desktop" is ever coming, you're delusional. Besides, Ubuntu had a reasonable UX for that audience long before systemd came around. Does Ubuntu allow me to configure all services and systems via a neat UI? No? Why? Because it still uses a flawed file-based approach, which is useless in the 21st century. Ubuntu replaced user-facing UX, but even there not everything could be properly done yet. Despite that, Ubuntu also created their own init system, display server, syslog daemon, and a registry for configs. So, they had the same stuff systemd now provides, and more. > You could do 2 of those three things already (syslog and namespacing), and bsdinit init files aren't hard to right. > Software namespacing doesn't require systemd. Syslog streaming has been a thing for a long time. And BSDinit, s6-rc, runit, openrc, sheperd, nosh, systemXVI, perp, watchman, and a variety of other init systems exist that make writing unit files easy. Many of them predate systemd. I’ve tried unit files for other init systems, it was a pain in the ass. Systemd is the first where every software provides matching unit files, I can easily write my own, and it just works. Again, the entire point is that it just works and is still easily configurable and modularized.

kuschku 10y ago

Then which audio system is simple to set up AND allows per-program volume, effects, etc? Which init system "just works" without requiring me to copy and modify a hacky init script from stackoverflow? Lennarts products are controversial, but they’re the classical "least worst" options.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
>Then which audio system is simple to set up AND allows per-program volume, effects, etc? JACK >Which init system "just works" without requiring me to copy and modify a hacky init script from stackoverflow? s6, runit, bsdinit (yes, really). >Lennarts products are controversial, but they’re the classical "least worst" options. No, they're ugly, broken messes that look nice. Systemd is a monster. If it was an init system, I wouldn't complain, but it's not. It's an init system that's also a cron replacement, a syslog replacement, an automount replacement, a docker replacement, a consolekit replacement, steadily gaining a tight integration with udev, overcomplicates everything it touches (we need a hostname daemon now?), provides libraries to high-level userland that are DELIBERATELY POSIX incompatible, promotes binary formats for no reason, flies in the face of tradition for no reason and breaking code (screen sessions die now), overcomplicates PID1, increasing the chances of a kernel panic, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Systemd is a tiny step forward, followed by a massive step back, and of you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > JACK > simple to set up Try getting it to run with basically anything, seriously. Pulseaudio is plug-and-play. > Which init system "just works" Neither of the ones you mention fit that description > It's an init system that's also a cron replacement Wrong. SystemD is a project with a similar branding issue that KDE has. Systemd is a project. It develops a set of libraries. And, on top of that, an init system. And a cron replacement. And a syslog replacement. You do not need to use them together – just like you can use Gtk apps in a KDE environment – but together everything works best. > for no reason and breaking code (screen sessions die now) For the reason that shutting down my PC means it spends 10 minutes waiting for screen sessions to kill themselves, and I can not stop that without either doing a killall, alt-print-reisub, or just pulling the plug? It also provides a way to keep things running still. > increasing the chances of a kernel panic Never had one, and I’m running bleeding-edge arch > Systemd is a tiny step forward, followed by a massive step back, and of you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention. Systemd is the least worst option. There is not much of an alternative for such a kind of project, that properly handles things in a more modern way. I want a userland that works plug-and-play, I want syslog as a daemon with database, not as a fucking flat file. I want more dbus, and, ideally, I’d have all config files in a database or registry for easier administration and sync. I want proper udev and containerization, I want programs of my user to be killed upon logout unless specified otherwise. Lennarts projects don’t provide what the old crowd of nerds want. But they provide what the average user want, and what’s required to make Linux actually usable for your sister, your grandmother, and your retarded neighbor that can’t even turn on a PC. It also reduces the workload for server admins, like me, again. I can write systemd unit files in a few minutes, can easily stream syslog over the network from multiple servers and aggregate, I can easily handle namespacing of software.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    >I can write systemd unit files in a few minutes, can easily stream syslog over the network from multiple servers and aggregate, I can easily handle namespacing of software. You could do 2 of those three things already (syslog and namespacing), and bsdinit init files aren't hard to right. >Systemd is a project. >It develops a set of libraries. >And, on top of that, an init system. >And a cron replacement. >And a syslog replacement. >You do not need to use them together – just like you can use Gtk apps in a KDE environment – but together everything works best. That's BS. A lot of it's all one executable. >I want a userland that works plug-and-play, I want syslog as a daemon with database, not as a fucking flat file. I want more dbus, and, ideally, I’d have all config files in a database or registry for easier administration and sync. Well, if you want Windows, you know where to find it. But stop trying to turn my UNIX into it. >I want programs of my user to be killed upon logout unless specified otherwise. Well, you're in an EXTREME minority. >But they provide what the average user want, and what’s required to make Linux actually usable for your sister, your grandmother, and your retarded neighbor that can’t even turn on a PC. ...and if you think "the year of linux on the desktop" is ever coming, you're delusional. Besides, Ubuntu had a reasonable UX for that audience long before systemd came around. >I can write systemd unit files in a few minutes, can easily stream syslog over the network from multiple servers and aggregate, I can easily handle namespacing of software. Software namespacing doesn't require systemd. Syslog streaming has been a thing for a long time. And BSDinit, s6-rc, runit, openrc, sheperd, nosh, systemXVI, perp, watchman, and a variety of other init systems exist that make writing unit files easy. Many of them predate systemd.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      > That's BS. A lot of it's all one executable. That’s not even true if you use the packages for debian or redhat. In both cases, it’s over a dozen packages for systemds independent projects, and you can replace each of them seperately, if you wish to. I’ve done so in the past on a server where I couldn’t update everything because it was an old-style containerized VPS with shared kernel. > Well, if you want Windows, you know where to find it. But stop trying to turn my UNIX into it. > Well, you're in an EXTREME minority. Then go and use UNIX, aka BSD. This is the linux world, and most people want it – as seen in the countless times when distro maintainers held a vote pro or con systemd. > ...and if you think "the year of linux on the desktop" is ever coming, you're delusional. Besides, Ubuntu had a reasonable UX for that audience long before systemd came around. Does Ubuntu allow me to configure all services and systems via a neat UI? No? Why? Because it still uses a flawed file-based approach, which is useless in the 21st century. Ubuntu replaced user-facing UX, but even there not everything could be properly done yet. Despite that, Ubuntu also created their own init system, display server, syslog daemon, and a registry for configs. So, they had the same stuff systemd now provides, and more. > You could do 2 of those three things already (syslog and namespacing), and bsdinit init files aren't hard to right. > Software namespacing doesn't require systemd. Syslog streaming has been a thing for a long time. And BSDinit, s6-rc, runit, openrc, sheperd, nosh, systemXVI, perp, watchman, and a variety of other init systems exist that make writing unit files easy. Many of them predate systemd. I’ve tried unit files for other init systems, it was a pain in the ass. Systemd is the first where every software provides matching unit files, I can easily write my own, and it just works. Again, the entire point is that it just works and is still easily configurable and modularized.