AnyDesk 'portable' packages - 32- or 64-bit....

[Mike Walsh]

@ wiak:-

Mm. O-kay. Fair comment!

I stand corrected....

No; I accept that Lennart Poettering is a very clever guy, and also that he, unlike many others in the community, is taking "the long view".....looking much further ahead than most. I also suspect that my views on systemd are coloured by my own often disastrous encounters with Pulseaudio (no two ways about it, the thing IS overly-complex; even the mainstream distros, whose infrastructure is rather better organised than ours, don't always seem to get it right.)

But your statement, which I'll quote:-

...<snip>I have personally worked with SysVinit since the early 1990's, but have to say that now that I've finally learned a bit of how to use systemd, it is much easier to use from a sysadmin point of view, and like a breath of fresh air</snip>...

.....confirms what I've gleaned from multiple sources over the last couple of years; that the thing is primarily geared towards making the lives of sysadmins as easy as possible. This, by its very nature, pre-supposes a high degree of prior, existing knowledge; certainly not in keeping with Puppy's ethos, which is very much that of a single-user, hobbyist system, often adopted by those merely looking to buck the status quo, and not necessarily that knowledgeable where the nuts'n'bolts are concerned..!

I accept the statements about hardware complexity having vastly increased, and therefore requiring more complex methods of controlling, configuring & administering; this new HP tower of mine makes ye anciente Dell lappie - nearly 18 years old now, and still going strong! - look distinctly pedestrian & "agricultural", to put it kindly.

I can't help feeling that the user is being somewhat "backgrounded" by all this, and that the general attitude is slowly reverting toward an earlier era, where high technical knowledge was taken as a "given" if you wanted to run Linux successfully. But that's just me.

(You're probably right about Puppy benefiting from a revised, simplified init system. I won't argue with you on that score, since I have only the most tenuous understanding of what really goes on at that stage of the game. I'm not an "expert" where the basic code that makes everything function is concerned.....and even at the 'user' level, where my own contributions are targeted, I'm a very long way from being an "expert" of any stripe. I'll be the first to admit that.)

I shall endeavour to refrain from making further 'pronouncements'..!


Mike.

[wiak]

.....confirms what I've gleaned from multiple sources over the last couple of years; that the thing is primarily geared towards making the lives of sysadmins as easy as possible. This, by its very nature, pre-supposes a high degree of prior, existing knowledge; certainly not in keeping with Puppy's ethos, which is very much that of a single-user, hobbyist system, often adopted by those merely looking to buck the status quo, and not necessarily that knowledgeable where the nuts'n'bolts are concerned..!
...
I shall endeavour to refrain from making further 'pronouncements'..!

Mike.

But that last comment of yours about further pronouncements is unfair Mike because it tends to make me look like the out-of-topic bad guy!

However, I have to dispute further, because the fact of the matter is that systemd configuration is far simpler generally than SysVinit! The mechanism, the things you need to do to control everything are much simpler, and the method is consistent so once you get the hang of it, the same simple configs apply to every system service you are trying to control. Dear old SysVinit as used by Puppy, on the other hand, requires very good knowledge of both the complex init scripting system (which is utterly implementation dependent and at the whim of the installer/scripts-implementer to a large extent) and also of shell scripting itself - no such requirement for systemd. People who have no programming skills at all can learn the simple basics of systemd and control all the services on their system as and how they want to. No way can most people manage that with SysVinit, which requires a complex study of the init scripts on the system and how they are set up and what is in them!

So why do most people consider systemd use a 'black complex art' when it isn't? Simple - they haven't actually used it (in the sense of configuring with it) and believe all the mis-information about its complexity. And frankly most users probably have no interest in setting up their system to run the way they want it (not at the services level - yes, many like setting up their desktop configuration, but truth is, that is easier under systemd as well...).

Is there a bad side to systemd. Well, nothing is perfect - there are always drawbacks, but the biggest worry, I suppose if you think of it that way is that systemd is good enough that it may indeed eventually utterly take over... When something better in design comes along it is a reality that it becomes more and more difficult to maintain backwards compatibity and most app developers simply don't have enough time to try. As more and more system components get drawn in to becoming systemd compatible, so thus does Linux generally. Without stating my opinion of pulseaudio here, the case is similar for that compared to direct use of alsa, which is problematic because alsa operation is quite low level in terms of control structures and too much hardware dependent - pulseaudio provides a higher control layer that sorts out the underlying stuff for you (if configured correctly, which tends, nowadays, to be the case out-of-the box in major distros).

wiak

[step]

Is there a bad side to systemd. Well, nothing is perfect - there are always drawbacks

I'm truly interested in knowing that you think are the technical and usage drawbacks of systemd, if any. Thank you.

[wiak]

Is there a bad side to systemd. Well, nothing is perfect - there are always drawbacks

I'm truly interested in knowing that you think are the technical and usage drawbacks of systemd, if any. Thank you.

Well... I'll in any case resist commenting off-topic. I suppose opinions on systemd more generally have a thread somewhere - though the title slants the discussion with negative ideas about it via its title as far as I recall.

wiak

[step]

Well... I'll in any case resist commenting off-topic.

OK, fair enough.

[01101001b]

But it's possible to have systemd-related items on the system without having the monstrosity itself.

Mike, you are misinformed. This forum is full of such misinformation, which is a tragic falsehood [...]

Wiak, please don't evangelize systemd here. Is it ok for you? Good. But, again, don't try to sell systemd here.

Systemd IS a monstrosity, regardless your worshipping of it. It's not just Mike's opinion or my opinion... there are entire communities thinking systemd is BS (Devuan anyone?)... and you know it.

But, according to you, ALL those professionals, developers, mantainers, programmers et al. in these communities are "misinformed", "full of falsehood" and "nonsense", "misleading less-informed" users, bla bla.

Again, no need to argument here. But I found disrespectful your statement to call Mike misinformed (or anybody else for that matter) just because somebody is not sharing your love for systemd.

Barry Kauler himself doesn't share your passion, either. Does that make him "misinformed", "full of falsehood" and "nonsense", "misleading less-informed" users too?

Live and let live.

As you well said, this discussion is off-topic here, so no answer needed (and if there is one, it'll be neither read nor answered).

Regards.

[pcplague2]

Today is a month since started using puppy linux.
From what I understand Mike says systemd is monstrosity as to do with size.
Since puppy is made for using few resources I understand.
I would love to know how much it that size difference.
Testing anydesk in my lan.