Please wait...
omfg.
CentOS 7 is the first time I've started installing a Linux operating system and thought, "WTF?! Why did they hire away developers from Microsoft to build this?"
The installer is unintuitive, looks like it was designed for a tablet, does stupid things, and breaks easily.
Upon my second reboot to check if the right set of services was running, it just broke completely.
It suggested some commands with which I was not familiar to troubleshoot.
Reading the output of these commands suggested that the controversial "systemd" is to blame.
F**k this. I'm sticking with 6.5 until they sort this crap out.
2014-12-11 12:30 from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd
They all have something, either a spinning disk or an SSD (typically 32
or 64 GB). Obviously it's doable ... there are even people running
Windows (cursed be its name forever) on them. Maybe I will experiment
32-bit, maybe? 64-bit win8 takes 40gb disk just for the base install. it's hard to do much of anything useful with <250gb of storage these days.
Yea, all I do with the W81 installation in that 50G partition of my vaio pro is boot it now and then, ugrade it, shut it down again ;-)
Just re-subscribed to the Slackware cd mailer. I recently installed the latest version to a VM, and the installer was .... exactly the same as I remember it (thankfully). I know they have to swallow the blue pill at some point with smegma systemd, but that point has not yet arrived.
Wed Dec 17 2014 18:07:45 ESTfrom IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored
omfg.
CentOS 7 is the first time I've started installing a Linux operating system and thought, "WTF?! Why did they hire away developers from Microsoft to build this?"
The installer is unintuitive, looks like it was designed for a tablet, does stupid things, and breaks easily.
I was a big fan of ArchLinux, but lately, I have been having more and more problems related to systemd. It is like having to learn a whole new operating system to just figure out how that thing works. The earlier comment about openvpn not working just adds to the frustration. What ever happened to the motto of "Do one thing and do it well"
I think I am going to switch to Slackware for the same reason, I switched to ArchLinux a few years ago.
Fri Dec 26 2014 12:43:23 AM EST from nristen @ Uncensored Subject: systemd woes...I think I am going to switch to Slackware for the same reason, I switched to ArchLinux a few years ago.
Keep in touch about your conversion! Another bit about Slackware is, at least I could drive over and buy Pat some lunch on an afternoon off. Not that it would come to that. I did have an email exchange back with him in 1999-2000 or so about the exclusion of PAM. I was given ample room for rebuttal . There was later the "extras" packages that made most packages that required PAM work on Slackware possible as well. I think P.V. would avoid a bad decision for the Slackware distro and try to patch around it (much like PAM), if at all possible.
It it still possible to use Gentoo without PAM and without systemd. I rarely have use for PAM on single user systems or servers, so I have no clue why it is default on all systems.
I have made use if PAM on a Centos 6.5, in order to plug Citadel into an ssl enbabled LDAP server: Citadel used PAM for its users, Centos used nslcd to pull LDAP into PAM. This is really some arcane satanic ritual and might brake from update to update. Sometimes a reboot fixed it, sometimes I needed to change one line in a config file. There also seems to be a more modern way to do that, via some sssd service, or whatever. Never got that up and running.
hm, I've fuzzed with systemd fuckups 3 times in the last month, and I sort of don't like it.
while it seems to offer lots of debug abilities, I wasn't able to find the real cause of the failure.
- dhcp on the router was dead, but wpa still working - laptop would hang 5 minutes to decide I could eventually live without network. (no, no NetworkFailureSystem or any other bullshit)
- the $work workstation didn't have plymouth installed, but failed with red because of that. WTF?
- installed it, still doesn't boot but drops me on the rescue shell.
I hope jessie is going to become the short livest debian release.
I have been trying to get a network running at a clients side. After messing around for hours, my solution is this:
yum erase firewalld
yum install shorewall
My scenario: fileserver on lan, openvpn clients connecting via this server. My problem: vpn clients not able to access another (license) server on the lan.
I did not find one single conclusive howto for this setup, I managed to force the necessary rules for masquerading, accepting and forwarding on firewalld using the --direct option. This basically means I work around the whole firewalld by passing it true iptables syntax. What do I need a new firewall system for, if it only has unusable commands and no support for common options? The forwarding commands in firewalld are explicitly for forwarding ports, not complete network traffic. The masquerade options states that it is for masquerading, I did not try it since it had no further explanation. I only stumbled about other users having the same problem on the internet, no wiki, no howto with real world examples.
I installed shorewall, edited zones, interfaces, policy and masq files. Presto, everything up and running in under 5 minutes.
Now, who gets the bill for hours of messing with that pile of shit? Red Hat or my client?
Subject: Re: firewalld, the next hot shit after systemd
For dedicated firewall systems, the up-and-coming contender seems to be VyOS [http://vyos.net]. It basically rose from the ashes after Vyatta took their ball and went home, and is true open source. Whereas pfsense and m0nowall give you FreeBSD to contend with, VyOS is built on Debian Linux/Linux.
Its configuration language is somewhat Juniper-like (including commit-confirm ftw!) and it's got all of the stuff you'd expect from a proper router, including protocols like OSPF and BGP. Best of all: NO WEB UI. If you're not smart enough to configure a firewall/router, you don't get to use it. And since it's built on Debian, you can bring in outside packages to add on to it if you want to.
I'm currently writing a REST API for it, for a specific work-related project.
So far it's been pretty good.
firewalld is the /etc/init.d/iptables replacement Centos7.
I was ok with the way iptables were handled on Centos6. This firewalld is an unbelievable mess.
Shorewall is something even an imbecile could configure. Dunno how secure it is compared to other stuff, but I only need masquerading and traffic routing.
hm, to be honest, never heard of firewalld - another F*ck poetering is trying to force on the rest of the world?
I used to use ferm as iptables frontend, nice syntax.
for shure lartc.org is something to browse through before starting with ip and friends.
Subject: Re: firewalld, the next hot shit after systemd
Really though, if iptables is the order of the day, it's a whole lot easier to just put your iptables commands into /etc/rc.d/rc.local and no system daemon will ever mess with them.
Dipping my toes into Linux recently, I felt a need to support systemd for starting some customer services. It was, initially, a major pain in the ass to figure out why something wasn't quite working correctly, but eventually I worked through the problem (the code was not quite working correctly, but system v approaches hid the issue), and got it to work reasonably well.
I'm still a little fuzzy about how it deals with dependencies... most specifically, the various names for various dependencies, which can be different depending on distributions... but I muddled through.
Philosophically, though, I don't like systemd. Unix has a tradition of 'do one thing, and do it well,' that systemd violates from what I can see. It feels to me as if systemd needs to be broken down into more discrete pieces that have a common api through which to communicate.