can you be more specific?dasein wrote:Okay, that's twice now...
Did I mistype a word? Misspell? Drop? (If so, I'm missing it, even on multiple readings.)
What you're attributing to me is exactly the opposite of what I wrote.
Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
su limitations and systemd
Re: su limitations and systemd
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
Re: su limitations and systemd
Personally, I like the integration of `machinectl` with systemd-nspawn which will make it much simpler for me to set up and use Debian containers without messing around with debootstrap (or Docker).dasein wrote:I can't see any upside. At all.
Maybe someone can explain it.
deadbang
-
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14
Re: su limitations and systemd
No, no problems with ''su'' here. But systemd has broken my rig when i first did an upgrade of Wheezy->Jessie. I couldn't reboot or shutdown the computer, it just hanged there till I did hard poweroff.go4linux wrote:https://tlhp.cf/lennart-poettering-su/
Now looking at the bug report it seems that su does have problems. What I don't understand is why move it to systemd.
Is there some merit to it or it's time to move to FreeBSD?
So, yeah, when will this upgrade affect us currently on Jessie? So I can revert to Wheezy if it's gona be soon. Primary reason I switched to GNU/Linux was to get away from viruses that plagued my Winblows and to use a working, fast OS on an old Dell.
Off-topic: Nice to meet you all. I've been using Debian GNU/Linux for a while and have been visiting this forum to learn some things. This topic urged me to register and do what I can to support clean, non-bloated OS.
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
Re: su limitations and systemd
Never.Wheelerof4te wrote:So, yeah, when will this upgrade affect us currently on Jessie?
It has just been introduced with version 225 of systemd and jessie is "stuck" on version 215.
deadbang
-
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14
Re: su limitations and systemd
^Thank you for a quick answer, that reassured me to stick with my Jessie
I knew that Debian stable versions don't upgrade packages, except security and major bug fixes, but I had fears that it may surprise us as ''proposed'' upgrade.
I knew that Debian stable versions don't upgrade packages, except security and major bug fixes, but I had fears that it may surprise us as ''proposed'' upgrade.
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
Re: su limitations and systemd
^ Not to worry -- in my sid system, the machinectl & systemd-nspawn packages (and a few others) have been separated out from the main systemd package and have to be installed explicitly.
https://packages.debian.org/sid/systemd-container
https://packages.debian.org/sid/systemd-container
deadbang
Re: su limitations and systemd
I was going to post the first reply in this thread last night, but while I was typing the internet went down. However, amazingly, my post is still relevant, so here it is.
This is from the same guy who says sysVinit is broken, Linux is broken, Windows is a superior design to Linux, and the BSDs are legacy systems.Long story short: su is really a broken concept.
Because everything will be part of systemd. You have not figured that out yet?go4linux wrote:What I don't understand is why move it to systemd.
Re: su limitations and systemd
Personally, I think this this post by Laurent accurately describes the situation.golinux wrote:Let's bring some balance to this thread:
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 ... 9a.en.html
What he conveniently forgets, of course, is that having a
real root session with a separated environment, which is
what the new feature does, could already be achieved... by
logging in as root.
Duh!
So, this is just yet another propaganda stunt.
"su sucks. See? UNIX sucks! And now systemd can do so much
better than UNIX: it gives you real root sessions that do not
leak anything from the user environment."
"But, um, can't UNIX already do that ?..."
"NO NO NO systemd does it better because <insert confusing
buzzwords that will bamboozle executives and journalists>"
It's been like this since day 1 of systemd, and I'm not
expecting it to change any time soon.
Re: su limitations and systemd
It seems that systemd is like a sort of cover to hide the real intention to put a closed kernel under GNU... It's just a distraction more efficient with a young arrogant in front line. I wasn't able to find any other reasons.
- keithpeter
- Posts: 502
- Joined: 2009-06-14 08:06
- Location: 5230n 0155w
Re: su limitations and systemd
Is that splitting out of the two packages from the main systemd distribution because Debian has the support for legacy sysv init based scripts? Will sid transition to a 'pure' systemd approach soon with no legacy or do I have to puggle with Fedora/rawhide to get the systemd as intended experience?Head_on_a_Stick wrote:^ Not to worry -- in my sid system, the machinectl & systemd-nspawn packages (and a few others) have been separated out from the main systemd package and have to be installed explicitly.
https://packages.debian.org/sid/systemd-container
Would someone deploying containers have to use the machinectl shell command in the machinectl routinely?
Would the machinectl shell command be invoked programatically? The way you exit from machinectl shell (ctrl-J-J-J typed in one second) might get interesting for international keyboards given how a linux based system handles keyboard mapping (the termcap turtles &c).
(I am assuming that the su - command will remain for human users as it is a separate command so that the machinectl shell is an additional feature for the devops types, in which case we can all stop mumbling into our beards )
Re: su limitations and systemd
https://lwn.net/Articles/572957/
FreeBSD is definitely starting to look more interestingPoettering began by noting that most people think of systemd as an init system, which it is, but that's just where it started and it is more than that now. Systemd is a set of "components needed to build up an operating system on top of the Linux kernel", he said. As part of the development of systemd, the team looked at various kernel features to see if they were relevant to the project.
Re: su limitations and systemd
Perhaps instead of forking debian we should fork systemd.go4linux wrote:https://lwn.net/Articles/572957/
FreeBSD is definitely starting to look more interestingPoettering began by noting that most people think of systemd as an init system, which it is, but that's just where it started and it is more than that now. Systemd is a set of "components needed to build up an operating system on top of the Linux kernel", he said. As part of the development of systemd, the team looked at various kernel features to see if they were relevant to the project.
SYSTEMDFUL - an new and useFUL upgrade to Lennarts baby steps.
Its main purpose is to make sure it supplies proper LSBs to init scipts, and can be used as an extra way of turning on and off daemons. More the better. Perhaps control some even useFUL functions.
It can also check the hosts files for typos.
And no doubt an excellent weather display (in a tile) for Gnome3.
Re: su limitations and systemd
it's not Ctrl-J(x3), it's Ctrl-] (square brackets three times)keithpeter wrote:The way you exit from machinectl shell (ctrl-J-J-J typed in one second)
But Ctrl-D (one time) also works)
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
Re: su limitations and systemd
Possibly, I hadn't thought of that.keithpeter wrote:Is that splitting out of the two packages from the main systemd distribution because Debian has the support for legacy sysv init based scripts?
I just presumed the developers did it to assuage the mass of conservative Debianees...
I would really like that but I don't think so; Debian seems commited to being init-agnostic (cue flame attack from the tentacles people).keithpeter wrote:Will sid transition to a 'pure' systemd approach soon with no legacy
It is still possible to use systemd-nspawn (and other containers) without using `machinectl`, it's just a bit more of a faff.keithpeter wrote:Would someone deploying containers have to use the machinectl shell command in the machinectl routinely?
Good point, don't know about that but there must be a scriptable way of terminating the container -- I'll get back to you on thiskeithpeter wrote:Would the machinectl shell command be invoked programatically? The way you exit from machinectl shell (ctrl-J-J-J typed in one second) might get interesting for international keyboards given how a linux based system handles keyboard mapping (the termcap turtles &c).
EDIT: With systemd-nspawn, using `shutdown -p now` (or similar) closes the container.
EDIT2: Or use:
Code: Select all
machinectl terminate
Yupkeithpeter wrote:(I am assuming that the su - command will remain for human users as it is a separate command so that the machinectl shell is an additional feature for the devops types, in which case we can all stop mumbling into our beards )
Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick on 2015-08-31 20:11, edited 2 times in total.
deadbang
- alansmithee
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 2013-02-02 08:02
Re: su limitations and systemd
The beard mumbling is not that someone implemented a new command that did something he wanted to do in a manner in which he wanted it done; it is his declaring any command that doesn't do what he wanted to do and/or not in a manner which he wanted it done must somehow be a "broken concept".keithpeter wrote:(I am assuming that the su - command will remain for human users as it is a separate command so that the machinectl shell is an additional feature for the devops types, in which case we can all stop mumbling into our beards )
'alansmithee' is the user formerly known as 'saulgoode'.
Re: su limitations and systemd
At this point it is not about su being broken or not (it absolutely is not), but the monstrosity that is systemd gobbling every thing that is in userland and its eventual grab for the kernel as well until it is all part of Lennarts new OS called systemd. I really do not think anyone gives a sh#t if he does that so long as there is some way to revert the damage he is doing to linux as a whole with the dependancy problems. Since more and more upstream projects are now developing with/for systemd integration, that is becoming more and more remote.
- keithpeter
- Posts: 502
- Joined: 2009-06-14 08:06
- Location: 5230n 0155w
Re: su limitations and systemd
I accept your point. The gentleman's language is unfortunate sometimes, and some of his statements may come back to haunt him in the future. RHEL 7 is still in its early versions. Bulk deployment will start over the next few years. We shall see what new bugs crawl out as systems based on the newer versions of systemd enter large scale service. The acid test will be in how quickly they get fixed.alansmithee wrote:The beard mumbling is not that someone implemented a new command that did something he wanted to do in a manner in which he wanted it done; it is his declaring any command that doesn't do what he wanted to do and/or not in a manner which he wanted it done must somehow be a "broken concept".keithpeter wrote:(I am assuming that the su - command will remain for human users as it is a separate command so that the machinectl shell is an additional feature for the devops types, in which case we can all stop mumbling into our beards )
It appears the machinectl shell command isn't replacing the venerable su - but is in addition.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/20 ... 01290.html