8:05 a.m.
Hello, know someone why was annihilated '/etc/sysconfig/i18n' file?
It seems as there is '/etc/locale.conf' instead, but which was
reason for this?
TIA, Franta
8:38 a.m.
Frantisek Hanzlik wrote:
Hello, know someone why was annihilated '/etc/sysconfig/i18n'
file?
It seems as there is '/etc/locale.conf' instead, but which was
reason for this?
See
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel...
Starting with
2.3.2. Some /etc/sysconfig files have been deprecated
And, test list thread during f18 development on the topic,
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2012-October/111230.html
8:16 a.m.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:05:36 +0100
Frantisek Hanzlik wrote:
Hello, know someone why was annihilated '/etc/sysconfig/i18n'
file?
It seems as there is '/etc/locale.conf' instead, but which was
reason for this?
Redhat can sell more support if they constantly change things
for no apparent reason?
5:16 a.m.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:27:44 -0500
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is something we can all agree with. The problem is that finding
the
balance in practice turns out to be quite hard to do.
Not really, it is quite easy to do: if it is an entirely gratuitous
and cosmetic change, then don't do it. The hard part is restraining
the developers who think they are contributing useful work when
all they are doing is making life hell for all the people trying
to get real work done and have better things to do than dig
through every blog and mailing list in the universe to try and
discover what pointless change is being made next.
10:08 a.m.
Hi
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:27:44 -0500
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> This is something we can all agree with. The problem is that finding the
> balance in practice turns out to be quite hard to do.
Not really, it is quite easy to do: if it is an entirely gratuitous
and cosmetic change, then don't do it.
<http://ask.fedoraproject.org>
People don't make changes for the sake of it. They are putting effort,
often voluntarily because they really do believe it is helping users or
customers
Rahul
10:14 a.m.
On 02/26/13 19:16, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:27:44 -0500
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> This is something we can all agree with. The problem is that finding the
> balance in practice turns out to be quite hard to do.
I've been avoiding this thread. But I do have to ask.
Not really, it is quite easy to do: if it is an entirely gratuitous
and cosmetic change, then don't do it.
And who/what do you envision as the arbitrator of changes? Who/what decides that a
change is simply "gratuitous/cosmetic" or not? I think you may be saying that
you feel, at times, changes are made purely for the sake of change by some. Is this
opinion on your part or do you have documented evidence?
The hard part is restraining
the developers who think they are contributing useful work when
all they are doing is making life hell for all the people trying
to get real work done and have better things to do than dig
through every blog and mailing list in the universe to try and
discover what pointless change is being made next.
Again, it sounds as if you think a layer of "management" needs to be placed on
developers. Who else to "restrain" them from making your life miserable?
This list has become tiresome as of late. People being critical without offering
solutions *and* involving themselves in the process. Bitching and moaning on this list
isn't being "involved".
Are their shortcomings to Fedora in particular and any Linux distro in general? You
betcha. Can we help each other get around the shortcomings and seek to improve what is
handed to us? Yes. Without tearing down or insulting those who have given their time
without seeking fame or fortune? I think we can.
--
From now on, at least during winter time, Im going to blame all
spelling an grammar erros on the cat sitting on my chest every time I sit down at the
computer....
3:12 p.m.
Am 25.02.2013 22:09, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us
<mailto:joe@zeff.us>> wrote:
On 02/25/2013 12:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
standardization has the usual benefits for both users and developers.
Standards are a wonderful thing; there are so many of them to choose from.
I am not sure why the stock quote is consider a useful argument here. Distributions are
already adopting this.
and why "they" are not adopting /etc/sysconfig?
2:54 p.m.
Am 25.02.2013 21:46, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Frantisek Hanzlik
But reasons for change '/etc/sysconfig/i18n' I cannot see.
The goal of the change is to unify the configuration files and format between
distributions using systemd.
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-new-configuration-files.html
standardization has the usual benefits for both users and developers
in theory
in real life only for developers and not for Fedora/RHEL users
which are on board since many years - they are only finding
a lot of references and documentations/howtows ihe web which are
no longer true
5:12 p.m.
Am 26.02.2013 00:04, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and YES in times of Fedora Core 6 / Fedora Core 7 as long
as the distribution was mostly controlled by redhat there
where way less useless changes for the sake of the change
You seem to be implying that the community outside of Red Hat is pushing through needless
changes. This is not a
responsible claim and not backed by any real evidence since most of the changes that you
seem to against are fairly
major changes backed by Red Hat developers substantially and nothing to do with
core/extras merge. Fedora as a
project has seen tremendous growth in volunteer contributors after the merge and I would
say users are better off
because of it.
however
i am on board since Fedora Core 3
until Fedora 14 the disrtibution grow better and better
since F15 finally the distribution grows also much better
BUT with much more negative impact and careless all over
the subsystems, whatever goes wrong, there should be more
care again by consider changes/impact
_____________
and no, i am not that conservative
i was pretty sure one of the first admins out there which had
running Apache 2.0/Apache 2.2/MySQL 5.0/MySQL 5.1 as also
PHP5/5.1/5.2/5.3 in production as many other server software
over the last 10 years (dbmail3 as example where i spent many
nights to help upstream get it stable)
4:31 p.m.
Am 25.02.2013 23:26, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
which does ALL not change the fact that if you have a valid
Redhat knowledge / certification you can throw it away and the
current development does not show a sign that this will stop
in the next years
You are right in the sense that Fedora might not be really suitable for someone who has
conservative requirements.
On the other hand, Red Hat certification is typically valid for only a limited period
regardless of other changes
anyway. IT industry knowledge tends to need updates now and then and the pace of
development in open source tends
to be even higher. Since Fedora is on the leading edge, you will get those changes
rapidly. This is just the
fundamental nature of the distribution.
fine, changes for technical reasons are fine
changes for the sake of the change are nonsense
maybe Fedora should realize this
and YES in times of Fedora Core 6 / Fedora Core 7 as long
as the distribution was mostly controlled by redhat there
where way less useless changes for the sake of the change
4:26 p.m.
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
which does ALL not change the fact that if you have a valid
Redhat knowledge / certification you can throw it away and the
current development does not show a sign that this will stop
in the next years
You are right in the sense that Fedora might not be really suitable for
someone who has conservative requirements. On the other hand, Red Hat
certification is typically valid for only a limited period regardless of
other changes anyway. IT industry knowledge tends to need updates now and
then and the pace of development in open source tends to be even higher.
Since Fedora is on the leading edge, you will get those changes rapidly.
This is just the fundamental nature of the distribution.
Rahul
4:09 p.m.
Am 25.02.2013 23:00, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl(a)thelounge.net <mailto:h.reindl@thelounge.net>> wrote:
in other words:
we are changing things for EVERYBODY so that no one can complain
it was changed only for him - technical nonsense
Not really what I said at all. On the contrary, it all depends on the configuration file
and we have to consider
it on a case by case basis. For instance, systemd now uses /etc/hostname which was
originally a Debian
convention. In other cases, a neutral location and format was created. example:
/etc/os-release
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/os-release
which does ALL not change the fact that if you have a valid
Redhat knowledge / certification you can throw it away and the
current development does not show a sign that this will stop
in the next years
technical nonsense AKA change for the sake of the change
why do we not kill all the linux distributions and go ONE GLORY
way? becaue there is NO one glory way!
4 p.m.
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>wrote:
in other words:
we are changing things for EVERYBODY so that no one can complain
it was changed only for him - technical nonsense
Not really what I said at all. On the contrary, it all depends on the
configuration file and we have to consider it on a case by case basis. For
instance, systemd now uses /etc/hostname which was originally a Debian
convention. In other cases, a neutral location and format was created.
example: /etc/os-release
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/os-release
Rahul
3:52 p.m.
Am 25.02.2013 22:47, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl(a)thelounge.net <mailto:h.reindl@thelounge.net>> wrote:
who needs political reasons in software-development?
things are fine and working or not
yes, so easy the world could be
it would be easy to drive with sytemd the Radhat way and let other
distributions decide if they use sysVinit forever or follow this way
You are self-contradicting. Driving systemd "the Red Hat way" would be a
political decision. systemd developers
specifically don't want to do that at all. They want to make technically good
decisions and sometimes that means
looking at what other distributions are doing and adopting the good parts. Sometimes,
that means coming up with
new configuration file formats or locations
in other words:
we are changing things for EVERYBODY so that no one can complain
it was changed only for him - technical nonsense
sometimes it feels more developers have contracts with book wirters
to give a godd reason to buy the next version of a book because you
can throw away all existing ones
there where books written in 1998 which where perfectly until 2006/2007
and mostly 2009, they contained informations which where valid for decades
and now things are chnages each month - and this is the right direction?
it is NOT!
this has NOTHING to do with the unix paradigms
3:47 p.m.
H
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>wrote:
who needs political reasons in software-development?
things are fine and working or not
yes, so easy the world could be
it would be easy to drive with sytemd the Radhat way and let other
distributions decide if they use sysVinit forever or follow this way
You are self-contradicting. Driving systemd "the Red Hat way" would be a
political decision. systemd developers specifically don't want to do that
at all. They want to make technically good decisions and sometimes that
means looking at what other distributions are doing and adopting the good
parts. Sometimes, that means coming up with new configuration file formats
or locations.
Rahul
3:40 p.m.
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.02.2013 21:08, schrieb Frantisek Hanzlik:
> But reasons for change '/etc/sysconfig/i18n' I cannot see. Maybe some
> developers think that Fedora users have unlimited amount of time to
> learn all their flip-flops?
that is the point
there are WAY TOO MANY changes which are useless and only
for making over decades usebale documentations crap
well, i have the knowledge and energy to follow all this
bullshit, but the ordinary user and newcomer which finds
everywhere in the internet useless doucmentations may
have not and go back to a operating system wehre developers
fun is not fixing things which are not broken
P.S:
yes, i know about the direction to remove distribution-specific
configurations - but WHAT THE HELL why do we not kill all the
different distributions at all when the differences are bad?
big confirmation. Now is nearly faster download appropriate SW
sources (usualy with lot of patches) and study it, than finding
some on net.
3:38 p.m.
Am 25.02.2013 22:21, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net
<mailto:h.reindl@thelounge.net>> wrote:
Am 25.02.2013 22 <tel:25.02.2013%2022>:09, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
>
> I am not sure why the stock quote is consider a useful argument here.
Distributions are already adopting this.
and why "they" are not adopting /etc/sysconfig?
and political reasons (why should we adopt a Red Hat or SUSE decision etc). For
distributions using systemd
who needs political reasons in software-development?
things are fine and working or not
yes, so easy the world could be
it would be easy to drive with sytemd the Radhat way and let other
distributions decide if they use sysVinit forever or follow this way
3:21 p.m.
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>wrote:
Am 25.02.2013 22:09, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
>
> I am not sure why the stock quote is consider a useful argument here.
Distributions are already adopting this.
and why "they" are not adopting /etc/sysconfig?
You will have to ask them for specific reasons. As a general trend,
different distributions have over a period of time come up with various
configuration files and formats to do the same thing which leads to
pointless differences and makes it a fragile development platform for any
third party developer. Adoption to a neutral location is easier than
asking them to buy into /etc/sysconfig on the whole because of the legacy
involved, for both technical (non extensible file formats, distro specific
quirks) and political reasons (why should we adopt a Red Hat or SUSE
decision etc). For distributions using systemd, a change like this is
easier to adopt now because they have already bought into the benefits of
systemd and compatibility has been maintained during the transition
period.
Rahul
3:09 p.m.
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
On 02/25/2013 12:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> standardization has the usual benefits for both users and developers.
>
Standards are a wonderful thing; there are so many of them to choose from.
I am not sure why the stock quote is consider a useful argument here.
Distributions are already adopting this.
Rahul
2:46 p.m.
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Frantisek Hanzlik
But reasons for change '/etc/sysconfig/i18n' I cannot see.
The goal of the change is to unify the configuration files and format
between distributions using systemd.
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-new-configuration-files.html
standardization has the usual benefits for both users and developers.
Rahul
2:13 p.m.
Am 25.02.2013 21:08, schrieb Frantisek Hanzlik:
But reasons for change '/etc/sysconfig/i18n' I cannot see.
Maybe some
developers think that Fedora users have unlimited amount of time to
learn all their flip-flops?
that is the point
there are WAY TOO MANY changes which are useless and only
for making over decades usebale documentations crap
well, i have the knowledge and energy to follow all this
bullshit, but the ordinary user and newcomer which finds
everywhere in the internet useless doucmentations may
have not and go back to a operating system wehre developers
fun is not fixing things which are not broken
P.S:
yes, i know about the direction to remove distribution-specific
configurations - but WHAT THE HELL why do we not kill all the
different distributions at all when the differences are bad?
2:08 p.m.
Rex Dieter wrote:
Frantisek Hanzlik wrote:
> Hello, know someone why was annihilated '/etc/sysconfig/i18n' file?
> It seems as there is '/etc/locale.conf' instead, but which was
> reason for this?
See
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel...
Starting with
2.3.2. Some /etc/sysconfig files have been deprecated
And, test list thread during f18 development on the topic,
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2012-October/111230.html
Rex thanks for reference. But reasons for this changes isn't there.
With 'hostname' maybe this is for easier hostnamectl manipulation,
as in new file is only this one value, nothing else - as was in
'/etc/sysconfig/network'.
But reasons for change '/etc/sysconfig/i18n' I cannot see. Maybe some
developers think that Fedora users have unlimited amount of time to
learn all their flip-flops?
5:04 p.m.
Hi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and YES in times of Fedora Core 6 / Fedora Core 7 as long
as the distribution was mostly controlled by redhat there
where way less useless changes for the sake of the change
You seem to be implying that the community outside of Red Hat is pushing
through needless changes. This is not a responsible claim and not backed
by any real evidence since most of the changes that you seem to against are
fairly major changes backed by Red Hat developers substantially and nothing
to do with core/extras merge. Fedora as a project has seen tremendous
growth in volunteer contributors after the merge and I would say users are
better off because of it.
Rahul
4084
days inactive
4085
days old
25 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Ed Greshko -
Franta Hanzlík -
Joe Zeff -
Matthew Miller -
Rahul Sundaram -
Reindl Harald -
Rex Dieter -
Tom Horsley