You are not logged in.
Since I am a systems administrator, about 90% of the time that I want to post a question to the Arch BBS, the most natural place for that question is the (now long closed) System Administration board. Although I notice people are still posting questions there? Can the decision to close this board be re-examined? Maybe rename the board to something like Advanced System Administration to alert users this is not for routine questions? Redirecting, for example, an advanced systemd or pam question to Networking, Server, and Protection or Applications & Desktop Environments simply doesn't make any sense if you read the descriptions of these boards. In fact, none of the active boards are generally appropriate for the kinds of questions an experienced systems administrator is likely to ask.
Unless I'm asking a question about my own Arch desktop, I've generally stopped using the BBS for this reason. If I run into an issue I either email the package maintainer directly, sign up on the upstream mailing list, or just try to figure it out on my own. This is a shame, because the results of my (and likely hundreds of other Arch admins) are not being shared in a public forum.
I do update the relevant Wiki pages once I've found an answer, when applicable -- but am pretty sure most people are not doing this, based on the errors I frequently find in the Wiki. But having the answers posted to the forum makes it more likely that someone will update the Wiki. Shutting down targeted avenues of communication surely does more harm than good.
Offline
And am left wondering where to post my question of who is setting the default systemd target to graphical.target even on systems where no graphical software is installed. No active board is appropriate, so will simply abandon this issue for now, since it's not mission critical, adding to the list of the last 12 or so questions I've abandoned after realizing there is no appropriate BBS board for discussion of that issue.
Last edited by pgoetz (2017-11-24 18:16:22)
Offline
Can the decision to close this board be re-examined? Maybe rename the board to something like Advanced System Administration to alert users this is not for routine questions?
Unfortunately, the majority of people posting there didn't bother to read the board descriptions, stickies, wiki, man pages or anything else that would resemble documentation.
Your question can go in Apps and DEs, as it is about an application in the Arch repos (systemd).
Offline
A significant portion of the population refuse to read guidelines, stickies, or community standards. The failed System Administration was a prime example. As are the hordes of people who register, acknowledging the notification that we do not support Arch forks or "Installers" and then make an initial post asking about Arch Anywhere, Mangaro, random Youtube guides, etc... You can thank them.
Use your best judgment as to where to post. Or not. If a moderator disagrees, we will move it.
Edit: It is astounding how often Jason and I synchronously post equivalent things.
Last edited by ewaller (2017-11-24 18:36:20)
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing
---
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way
Offline
I figured this would be the response. Oh well. Calling systemd an application is quite a stretch, I hope you will agree. In a group of 100 linux admins, 100 out of a 100 would agree that systemd is a core system function and not an application in the usual sense of that word.
Offline
And am left wondering where to post my question of who is setting the default systemd target to graphical.target even on systems where no graphical software is installed.
No idea where that question should be put, but i do have an answer :
/usr/lib/systemd/system/default.target is a symlink to graphical.target in AL systemd pacakge .
I do have the impression that's an upstream decision.
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky
Offline
No idea where that question should be put ...
I know where it shouldn't be put: in the System Administration sub forum ... even if it was still open, as that answer would come from a simple `pacman -Qo ...` and `ls -l ...`
"UNIX is simple and coherent" - Dennis Ritchie; "GNU's Not Unix" - Richard Stallman
Offline