You are not logged in.

#51 2012-08-15 00:03:04

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,815

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

.:B:. wrote:

I'm not saying I'm looking forward to it, because I have no complaints about our present init system, but if it's a seamless transition... All for the better.

You've been around long enough to know better than that =p

@DHeart - rc.conf was previously present because there WAS not generally agreed way among the distros to specify these values. Now there is, thanks to systemd in part.

@lordmetroid - 'far more complex' means the SAME key value pairs being in 4-5 files rather than one. If you say so...


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#52 2012-08-15 00:54:38

dunc
Member
From: Glasgow, UK
Registered: 2007-06-18
Posts: 556

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

Everything DHeart said. One thing that attracted me to Arch five/six years ago was that, compared to the maze of configuration in other distros, rc.conf made sense. Now, to be fair, I understand other systems a bit better now, and it's true that it never covered everything, but somehow Arch will feel a tiny bit less Arch-ey without it.

However, I'll reserve final judgement until I've tried systemd. I very much doubt it'll be enough to make me move to another distro. But I'm still not happy about it. tongue


0 Ok, 0:1

Offline

#53 2012-08-15 01:20:27

2ManyDogs
Member
Registered: 2012-01-15
Posts: 1,654

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

I see a lot of people posting in this thread without having actually tried systemd. It's like people complaining about the new install procedure without actually trying it. Try systemd for yourself. Try the new install procedure. Then you can tell us what you think -- in my opinion both are improvements and opportunities for people to learn more about how Arch really works.

Last edited by 2ManyDogs (2012-08-15 01:23:14)

Offline

#54 2012-08-15 02:26:55

Dheart
Member
From: Sofia, Bulgaria
Registered: 2006-10-26
Posts: 943

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

@ManyDogs,
We are complaining for entirely different things than configuring the system being difficult.
For the record I had to use the new installer the day after it was released and I had to read the wiki, whereas with the previous install i didn't. I had to follow several steps.
@ngoonee This is the sort of explanation i was looking forward to, maybe a bit more detailed, though...


My victim you are meant to be
No, you cannot hide nor flee
You know what I'm looking for
Pleasure your torture, I will endure...

Offline

#55 2012-08-15 03:27:11

ANOKNUSA
Member
Registered: 2010-10-22
Posts: 2,141

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

lordmetroid wrote:

I like my system simple and on the edge. As far as I can tell systemd is far more complex to configure the system than by a few lines in rc.conf.

I suppose I will just have to test the new gadget out before I can say how I really feel.

Between the forums, wiki and various info around the web, research for the switch took me about two hours.  Once I figured out I was over-analyzing the issue, the actual switch (creating configs, making sure all services were enabled properly) took about 20 minutes.  Most of the features and options we end-users need to worry about in Systemd are near-perfect analogs to those in SystemV (e.g. mpd vs. mpd.service, "rc.d start mpd" vs. "systemctl start mpd.service").

Offline

#56 2012-08-15 04:51:48

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,815

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

Dheart wrote:

@ngoonee This is the sort of explanation i was looking forward to, maybe a bit more detailed, though...

Covered to death elsewhere, the ML (though I wouldn't recommend trying to search through all the troll-bait currently there) and best of all on Allan's blog (this is the recommended place).


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#57 2012-08-15 05:26:42

abstracity
Member
From: Houston, USA
Registered: 2007-08-08
Posts: 83

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

ngoonee wrote:

Covered to death elsewhere, the ML (though I wouldn't recommend trying to search through all the troll-bait currently there) and best of all on Allan's blog (this is the recommended place).

Thank you for the reference. Allan's new post on the issue was a pleasure to read.

Last edited by abstracity (2012-08-15 05:29:47)


Without error there can be no brilliancy. ― Emanuel Lasker

Offline

#58 2012-08-15 08:24:02

Dheart
Member
From: Sofia, Bulgaria
Registered: 2006-10-26
Posts: 943

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

Thank you a lot Allan for the explanation at your blog.
Just one more question: The command based install is just a temporal thing, right?


My victim you are meant to be
No, you cannot hide nor flee
You know what I'm looking for
Pleasure your torture, I will endure...

Offline

#59 2012-08-15 08:55:05

tonythed
Member
Registered: 2010-07-06
Posts: 9

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

.:B:. wrote:

Whatever wave later adopters of Arch were/are riding, I'm pretty sure centralised configuration is one of the main reasons for a lot of the original userbase. But maybe they have moved on... Who knows. It surely pains me to see it all go to waste. Guess I'll be frequenting the "If not Arch, then what?" topic more often.

IMHO systemd is a monstrosity that will drive many long time users away from Arch. Regardless of what is being sold, systemd will greatly complicate the disro over what it was and this will drive away a certain crowd of users. Me included. I have already started changing the distro on several of my boxes because of the writing on the Arch wall..

Offline

#60 2012-08-15 08:58:18

Banton
Member
Registered: 2010-05-28
Posts: 67

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

tonythed wrote:

IMHO systemd is a monstrosity that will drive many long time users away from Arch. Regardless of what is being sold, systemd will greatly complicate the disro over what it was and this will drive away a certain crowd of users. Me included. I have already started changing the distro on several of my boxes because of the writing on the Arch wall..

What gets more complicated exactly? and to what distro are you switching?

Offline

#61 2012-08-15 09:51:13

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,394
Website

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

Dheart wrote:

Just one more question: The command based install is just a temporal thing, right?

Not necessarily...   If a new or fixed AIF comes about, it could be included on the installer.   Whether a fixed version is ever provided is another story.

Offline

#62 2012-08-15 11:01:13

defears
Member
Registered: 2010-07-26
Posts: 218

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

I just switched one box to pure systemd and it it took me 20 minutes. It's without a doubt better and you have more control.

I still can't believe arch users (of a bleeding edge distro) complaining about using something new that gives more control and a few more config files. Besides rc.conf didn't have all configs in it anyway. If you don't like it install a Fedora netinstall and learn how to not install dependencies because systemd is auto configured.

As to to OP, Fedora has a lot of people working on it (Which is a very good thing) and can change a lot of things because they use point releases and their users never see it. Arch using something that Fedora makes simply has to make their users change somethings manually because of the rolling release nature.

Offline

#63 2012-08-15 12:12:27

acvar
Member
Registered: 2009-05-31
Posts: 29

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

lordmetroid wrote:

I like my system simple and on the edge. As far as I can tell systemd is far more complex to configure the system than by a few lines in rc.conf.

I suppose I will just have to test the new gadget out before I can say how I really feel.

More complex from whose perspective?  From the perspective of the end user who has things obfuscated by an abstraction layer, or from the perspective of the developers that no longer have to write that extra apstraction layer so the users don't have to get their hands dirty?  The devs could write another apstraction layer for systemd to maintain the current rc.conf, indeed they did just that, but that is not what arch is about.  It's time to take off the training wheels.  I know it may scare you, but you really don't need them and once they are gone you will look back and think how silly you were for refuseing to rid yourself of them.

Now having said that I think it might just be a good idea for ease of installation to create an install configuration file similar to rc.conf and a script to execute durring install that creates all of the neccessary configs from that central install script.  Any takers?

Last edited by acvar (2012-08-15 12:13:26)

Offline

#64 2012-08-15 12:15:36

masteryod
Member
Registered: 2010-05-19
Posts: 433

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

.:B:. wrote:

Because it's what set(s) Arch apart from other distro's. Take away pacman, it's BSD-esque ports twin ABS, and rc.conf, and there is pretty much nothing anymore that distinguishes Arch from whatever mainstream distro there is out there. Pacman is still a strong argument, as is ABS, but a lot of the userfriendliness of Arch is based solely on the fact you could just use one config file and be over and done with pretty much.

No, no, no! There's so much more!

Allan wrote:

Arch still has rolling release vanilla packages and pacman, which I think are its main draw-cards.

Yes, yes, yes! And there's so much more!


My two cents:

Arch IS rolling-release = changes are inevitable. Did you heard saying "If you don't move forward, you begin to move backward"? This is Linux world - it's changing rapidly. And yes there was higher rate of changes in Arch lately BUT none of them was crazy dumb-ass decision just to try something and dance around the fire. For how long people were ranting about Arch's lack of signed packages? And when our devs did implement this (security) feature, suddenly users were surprised that manual intervention is required. Grub2? Arch was always following upstream and you still have a choice about bootloader. /lib symlink? upstream changes. systemd - upstream + will unify some configuration across distros. /sbin/bin/ the same thing. You should be glad that Arch is not like stubborn kid who sulks on the playground but can play nicely and yet still maintain it's identity and advantages.

If you don't take care about things, if you don't maintain them, if you don't make necessary changes - they will work, shorter or longer but eventually they will break once and for all beyond any repair. That's why I'm so glad we've got strong leaders who are trying to make good decisions and are not afraid to make them.

@bergersau: don't worry, right now it might looks like there is so much going on but mostly you just pacman -Syu for months and smile like jackass wink

Offline

#65 2012-08-15 12:21:29

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,425

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

Maybe after the usrlib and systemd transition we'll be through with all the major changes for some time.

Offline

#66 2012-08-15 12:28:44

litemotiv
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2008-08-01
Posts: 5,026

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

karol wrote:

Maybe after the usrlib and systemd transition we'll be through with all the major changes for some time.

And the *bin changes ofcourse. smile


ᶘ ᵒᴥᵒᶅ

Offline

#67 2012-08-15 12:33:20

bangkok_manouel
Member
From: indicates a starting point
Registered: 2005-02-07
Posts: 1,554

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

karol wrote:

Maybe after the usrlib and systemd transition we'll be through with all the major changes for some time.

Depends on Lennart's activity I'd say smile


All design goals must be phrased in such a way that it is hard to use them as slogans to justify stupidity.

Offline

#68 2012-08-15 12:35:46

89c51
Member
Registered: 2012-06-05
Posts: 648

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

We also have Wayland coming but yeah thats a bit different.

Offline

#69 2012-08-15 12:38:17

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,425

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

litemotiv wrote:
karol wrote:

Maybe after the usrlib and systemd transition we'll be through with all the major changes for some time.

And the *bin changes ofcourse. smile

That's what I actually wanted to write <bangs head on wall>
Stage 1 of usrMove is already done, so now it's time for binaries.

89c51 wrote:

We also have Wayland coming but yeah thats a bit different.

That's more like btrfs :-)

Last edited by karol (2012-08-15 12:39:56)

Offline

#70 2012-08-15 13:07:16

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,394
Website

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

karol wrote:

Stage 1 of usrMove is already done, so now it's time for binaries.
-)

After pacman-4.1 is out...

Offline

#71 2012-08-15 13:16:48

marvn
Member
From: Prague
Registered: 2010-01-05
Posts: 83

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

disregard this one (dunno how to delete sad )

Last edited by marvn (2012-08-15 13:19:18)


core i5 4590, x86_64, nvidia 970

Offline

#72 2012-08-15 13:26:50

masteryod
Member
Registered: 2010-05-19
Posts: 433

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

Oh.. I forgot, Is there possibility to get blue'ish systemd notifications i.e. those: [  OK  ] signs, as it was with init instead of green ones?

Offline

#73 2012-08-15 13:30:57

bangkok_manouel
Member
From: indicates a starting point
Registered: 2005-02-07
Posts: 1,554

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

masteryod wrote:

Oh.. I forgot, Is there possibility to get blue'ish systemd notifications i.e. those: [  OK  ] signs, as it was with init instead of green ones?

u crazy, that's systemd main feature! big_smile


All design goals must be phrased in such a way that it is hard to use them as slogans to justify stupidity.

Offline

#74 2012-08-15 15:41:52

AaronBP
Member
Registered: 2012-08-06
Posts: 140
Website

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

Allan wrote:
Dheart wrote:

Just one more question: The command based install is just a temporal thing, right?

Not necessarily...   If a new or fixed AIF comes about, it could be included on the installer.   Whether a fixed version is ever provided is another story.

Hopefully if someone does start to maintain AIF, the install scripts will still be maintained...

They are just so much better!

Offline

#75 2012-08-15 15:48:21

Dheart
Member
From: Sofia, Bulgaria
Registered: 2006-10-26
Posts: 943

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

AaronBP wrote:
Allan wrote:
Dheart wrote:

Just one more question: The command based install is just a temporal thing, right?

Not necessarily...   If a new or fixed AIF comes about, it could be included on the installer.   Whether a fixed version is ever provided is another story.

Hopefully if someone does start to maintain AIF, the install scripts will still be maintained...

They are just so much better!

Well I'll have a bit more time in 2 weeks and I would be able to look at it then if noone else is interested (Not that i have any experience with it whatsoever, but oh well, learning time)


My victim you are meant to be
No, you cannot hide nor flee
You know what I'm looking for
Pleasure your torture, I will endure...

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB