|
what if i want a fedora that i dont have to reinstall on all my computes every 12 months
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
today a co-worker unironically had to edit his XConfig. he said he was editing modelines, but I choose to disbelieve that part
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
can i deja dup from ubuntu -> fedora? that program did a fkin bomb rear end job migrating all my poo poo. like all my user settings and poo poo. i have a big gedit file i use for like scratch notes and when i opened it after the migration the cursor was in the right place........ holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:today a co-worker unironically had to edit his XConfig. he said he was editing modelines, but I choose to disbelieve that part You haven't had to edit a modeline in close to twelve years now. Unless he's on nvidia proprietary. Which somehow ignores all common sense by not even reading your monitor's EDID on hotplug.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:You haven't had to edit a modeline in close to twelve years now. Unless he's on nvidia proprietary. Which somehow ignores all common sense by not even reading your monitor's EDID on hotplug. I think he's on NVIDIA yeah; it was a Tegra board of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
nvidia proprietary doesn't support tegra, that's all nouveau.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
the next time I get high at work I'll ask him what he really meant
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:what if i want a fedora that i dont have to reinstall on all my computes every 12 months then use arch where you have to reinstall every 2 weeks
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:then use arch where you have to reinstall every 2 weeks  I might try centos idk
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
arch is quite ftw actually
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
i just spent three days janitoring a debian server but now it does what i want it to do again some of that was physically janitoring the server around, lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:i just spent three days janitoring a debian server but now it does what i want it to do again oh right this is the desktop thread, uh, it was on my desk for a little while
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:oh right this is the desktop thread, uh, it was on my desk for a little while Nothing was more glorious in an open office space than firing up a 1u server on my desk, and pushing the fans as hard as I could.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
keyvin posted:firing up a 1u server … pushing the fans as hard as I could but you repeat yourself
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:what if i want a fedora that i dont have to reinstall on all my computes every 12 months fedora can use its regular updater to move between versions now
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:fedora can use the wind to move between hosts now 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
.
Sassafras fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
still waiting for somebody to explain what's wrong with ext4 and why we all need to move to btrfs even though it violates a lot of programs' assumptions about how filesystems work Lennart: "btrfs is great and i'm going to obnoxiously strongarm everyone into using it and only it! btw we have to special-case a bunch of poo poo in systemd-journald so that btrfs' smartyness doesn't make a dog's dinner of the file's layout on disk. oh and er bootloaders and kernels, of course. and disk images. and databases. and and and and.... SPECIAL CASES" every time Lennart says "i think X is cool but i mean other options will continue to be supported" he actually means "i will cram X down your loving throat and act in bad faith to sabotage everything that isn't X and then claim i never said that i'd continue to support ~X and people are just being hysterical as usual" so i'm pretty loving worried. this isn't a "linux is about choice" thing, btrfs is way more loving complex than ext4, it's slower than ext4 both on hdd and ssd, and it's been in the making for the best part of a decade and it still isn't considered production-ready. and it also tries to eat the device mapper and handle all that poo poo itself: spanning, mirroring, snapshotting, encryption, compression... the fusion-io people even wanted to release a raw NAND ssd and let btrfs manage the wear levelling too
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:still waiting for somebody to explain what's wrong with ext4 and why we all need to move to btrfs even though it violates a lot of programs' assumptions about how filesystems work If you don't know how to do manual partitioning so you can use ext2 on a 20TB raid, you ain't living. Poettering isn't that influential. Poettering is an employ of Redhat. Redhat wants something to compete with zfs. Poettering's agenda aligns with red hat's, so that is why it is going somewhere. Regarding assumptions about file systems - make another partition, or add another drive, and put the poorly written trash on that partition. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
lol if u believe rh has an agenda or Lennart would ever follow it
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
just use ntfs, imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
ext4 suits my needs but idk how files or computers works actually idk why I'm in this thread or this forum at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
if linux users think something is bad, that automatically means its good
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
ex: gnome 3
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
oval office AND PASTE posted:if linux users think something is bad, that automatically means its good does it also work the other way round? because if so you're my favorite poster
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
gnome 3 is the best window manager on any computer ....
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
keyvin posted:Poettering isn't that influential. Poettering is an employ of Redhat. Redhat wants something to compete with zfs. Poettering's agenda aligns with red hat's, so that is why it is going somewhere. what's the licensing on btrfs? I'd assume GPLv2 since it's a Linux thing but someone could've had an attack of sanity and made it BSD or MIT. also, countdown to hearing it pronounced by Linux weenies as "butterface" in conference sessions, with barely-concealed snickering, leading to another round of commentary about the community being exclusionary
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:just use ntfs, imo agreein with Shaggar
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
One of my drives had a weird error on btrfs on every other boot which forced me to go into single user mode. Turns out that it just needs to recalculate free space or something. Since it was a drive that I didn't write to, I just have it mounted read-only on boot, fixes everything. I'm going to replace that whole computer with Centos 7 and XFS. I think XFS will convince the world that Linux is ready for the Desktop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
keyvin posted:If you don't know how to do manual partitioning so you can use ext2 on a 20TB raid, you ain't living. if you're setting up a 20TB RAID then you should probably understand what the gently caress you're doing instead of going "btfs createraid --i-dont-give-a-gently caress-just-set-it-up-however /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...", yes, i agree quote:Regarding assumptions about file systems - make another partition, or add another drive, and put the poorly written trash on that partition. Problem solved. Programs assume that a filesystem is something that allocates ordered lists of disk blocks and assigns names and access control lists to them (and also pollutes this namespace with various IPC and system call portal garbage but whatever). This filesystem provides transactional guarantees for its own internal data structures, but as for the stuff you put in those blocks you're on your own. This lets them do things like mmap() a big persistent data structure instead of creating your own stupid block cache that fights with the kernel's smart one and wasting twice as much memory for no good reason. https://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/wiki/ArchitectNotes If your application wants a sophisticated transactional integrity scheme you can choose one depending on your particular requirements. If your applications wants data compression you can choose one depending on your particular requirements (LZO? LZMA? H264?). If you want to encrypt your poo poo then you can layer the filesystem on top of another block abstraction layer that performs encryption. Or you can just encrypt individual files, whatever. Of course you can pick your own cryptographic primitives. If you're storing all this poo poo on top of NAND flash then that gets stacked on top of another abstraction which dynamically remaps physical blocks to logical block numbers and performs wear levelling using some sort of device-optimised log-structured journal. And if you don't need any of those things then you simply don't add them. Much like the Internet gives you the simplest primitive that could possibly work: a best-effort mechanism that delivers small chunks of data from point A to point B in whatever order is convenient for it and you layer your own streaming, framing, compression, encryption, integrity, whatever, on top of that, instead of having a lovely one-size-fits-nobody solution forced upon you. Btrfs says no, we're going to be all things to all people. So all files are copy-on-write by default and many files get packed into single disk blocks. Which is all well and good when you're storing Grocery Shopping.txt but not so great when you've got a database write-ahead-log file or an append-only data structure like the systemd journal or like, any non-trivial read-write data structure stored on disk really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
the internet makes a best effort to deliver small chunks of concentrated toxic stupidity to unwary passers-by in the form of my posts. unfortunately, more often than not it is successful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
xfs seems ok and doesn't zero byte my files. idk why anyone would bother with anything else
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
why is xfs better than ext4 or is this a greyforum q
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
its numbers go bigger than ext4
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:words I don't understand. Even if poettering took Linus hostage and forced him to commit a change that made the kernel only bootable from barfs, what stops you from keeping your lovely program (or just it's data) that assumes it is on a 140kb 5 1/4" formatted GCR on an actual 5 1/4" floppy formatted GCR? If you don't need the features of BARFS, don't use it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
I mean sure, we can save developers that want all these things barfs hasa whole lot of time and complexity by abstracting it out of userspace completely, but... why would we do that guys? Is it because if it wasn't in SYS V it wasn't canonical unix? Like the star wars expanded universe or fanfic or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Make it easy to add all those features to non lovely programs with the flick of a switch, a mount, and a cp? gently caress that noise, If they want that stuff, they can work for it. Its like the arguments about raising the minimum wage - I worked my way up from utter poverty at $7.24 an hour to normal poverty at $9.00 an hour. It isn't fair that We will both be making $10 now, and I don't have the option to keep the $9 wage that I earned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
keyvin posted:I don't understand. Even if poettering took Linus hostage and forced him to commit a change that made the kernel only bootable from barfs, what stops you from keeping your lovely program (or just it's data) that assumes it is on a 140kb 5 1/4" formatted GCR on an actual 5 1/4" floppy formatted GCR? you still pay for features you aren't using
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:lol if u believe rh has an agenda or Lennart would ever follow it No, you got it backwards. Stop drinking at work. Poettering has an agenda, and it lines up with red hat's aim of having something like zfs.\
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:13
|
|