Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stali: A new static Linux distribution

sta.li

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 233 posts

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#71

Post by wruza »

pjmlp wrote: post #59
morganvachon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a loaded question, and I'm only qualified to answer from my perspective and experience. My biggest gripe with it has always been that it is alpha-quality software, even today, that has a central role in an otherwise mature OS ecosystem. It has been widely adopted (some would say forced or tricked into adoption by a few distros) and therefore all the major Linux distributions are now running at an alpha level w…

The irony of the eroding the UNIX philosophy from Linux is that most real UNIX systems, meaning AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, NeXTSTep (cough macOS), Tru64,... do have something similar to systemd. Sometimes shouting "UNIX philosophy" in GNU/Linux forums reminds me of emigrants that keep traditions of their home countries alive that are long out of fashion back home.

For me at least, unix philosophy is Thompson, Ritchie, Raymond, Stevens, etc., not some obscure commercial things.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#72

Post by hd4 »

vacri wrote: post #58
morganvachon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a loaded question, and I'm only qualified to answer from my perspective and experience. My biggest gripe with it has always been that it is alpha-quality software, even today, that has a central role in an otherwise mature OS ecosystem. It has been widely adopted (some would say forced or tricked into adoption by a few distros) and therefore all the major Linux distributions are now running at an alpha level w…

Ubuntu 16.04 is not meant for lightweight machines - for example, the Unity desktop assumes you have 3D acceleration (which sucks for using in a VM). It's not systemd that makes your atom netbook slow (well, assuming you're using Unity...) Re: systemd itself, I could care less about the bells and whistles, but every time I go back to fiddle with a sysv init script, I yearn for either of upstart or systemd...

Ubuntu actually has a low graphics mode so that it can be used in VMs

https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/09/19/low-graphics-mode-in-...

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#74

Post by mrweasel »

paulddraper wrote: post #28

I really like the idea of static linking. Then I think about how I'd patch the next inevitable openssl bug. Then I don't like it as much.

I like static linking, for some thing. Web applications is something I would really like to be just a statically linked binary, simply because it would enable you to chroot the application easily.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#75

Post by saynsedit »

icebraining wrote: post #57
saynsedit wrote: post #7

Sucks less until it starts to suck more. It's religion not science. Classic NIH.

Nonsense. They have a clear philosophy on what makes software suck less, it doesn't matter where it comes from. http://suckless.org/philosophy

Exactly my point. Philosophy has its place in software engineering but often it's not on a pedestal.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#76

Post by vidarh »

vacri wrote: post #45
thescribe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has found runit to meet my needs I don't think I have any reason to make peace with systemd. I feel like part of what people object to about systemd is the 'one true way to linux' thing.

Right now what I'm objecting to with systemd is that this system replaces syslog, has been created and driven by the enterprise linux distro, with full-time experienced linux devs, and has been released and used in production for years... ... and still doesn't have functional centralised logging ability. People have to use dirty hacks to make it work. This is my current headache.

That is "replaces" syslog (you can still have it forward to syslog if you insist) is one of the best parts. After getting used to journald I have no desire to ever go back to dealing with syslog.

> ... and still doesn't have functional centralised logging ability. People have to use dirty hacks to make it work. This is my current headache.

What are those "dirty hacks"? You can trivially use logstash or similar or you can forward log entries to a remote syslog-compatible endpoint. Incidentally the same that people usually do with syslog.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#78

Post by jimjimjim »

bitwize wrote: post #11
simophin wrote: post #3

I still don't understand why systemd sucks

Hating systemd is like hating Hillary Clinton at this point. It's well past time to suck it up and make peace with your next init system/President because the only viable alternative(s) are far worse.

don't bring politics in here.

the god damn stuff is everywhere and it doesn't need to be.

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#79

Post by vacri »

hd4 wrote: post #72
vacri wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ubuntu 16.04 is not meant for lightweight machines - for example, the Unity desktop assumes you have 3D acceleration (which sucks for using in a VM). It's not systemd that makes your atom netbook slow (well, assuming you're using Unity...) Re: systemd itself, I could care less about the bells and whistles, but every time I go back to fiddle with a sysv init script, I yearn for either of upstart or systemd...

Ubuntu actually has a low graphics mode so that it can be used in VMs https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/09/19/low-graphics-mode-in-...

I stand corrected. Maybe I'm thinking of 14.04?

Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution

#80

Post by INTPenis »

JdeBP wrote: post #5

( Also discussed previously at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8819085 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7261559 ) Interesting points: * http://sta.li/filesystem -- Everything not obviously covered by a fairly simplified hierarchy is put into /sucks , without fixing the problem of /etc still being a grab-bag miscellany. * http://sta.li/filesystem -- /dev being for devices is a "Linux assumption". * http:/…

>* http://sta.li/filesystem -- /.git goes unmentioned. (-:

This was an important point to me.

I've never used suckless software but one of the first concerns I had with stali was upgrading. Apparently initiating an upgrade is simple using git but what happens if an upgrade fails due to its size?

I assume we're upgrading the entire system over git, and in this case that means many very large binary files.

I'm of the philosophy that no security measure will get rid of the need to contiunally patch and upgrade your software.

Post reply on HN