General Linux Chat and Small Questions v. I broke my Arch Install
6,886 replies, posted
[QUOTE=nikomo;45326039]Monopolies are a phenomenon that can either be forced, or occur naturally.
In this case, all the other choices seriously just suck, and the monopoly occurred naturally.
If it does end up actually being a problem, competition will happen, since it's extremely hard to control the market with lobbying in the open-source market.
In the meanwhile, you can still technically use the old stuff - hell, enterprise distributions sure as hell have been shipping packages that haven't seen updates in years, and they have no problems.[/QUOTE]
In the end, it's more a matter of principle more than practical application for me though, and I'm using Ubuntu on my desktop PC anyway so I could just not care if it came to that. Been using Arch for a long time and it has systemd too. I can see where it's useful.
But the principle I'm refering to is that there should be a possibility for several implementers to follow a simple pattern that allow them to pass a certain standard, such as we have with POSIX. There just isn't any, to my knowledge anyway.
quick question, if you guys don't like systemd why not do linux from scratch?
[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;45328726]quick question, if you guys don't like systemd why not do linux from scratch?[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of distributions that don't use systemd, plenty of VERY good ones too.
It varies from person to person why they dislike it, but I think the majority think either
1) it's just too bloated, like there's too much stuffed into the final binary that they don't care about,
2) it's a matter of systemd taking too much of the ecosystem into one binary, producing a single point of failure, or
3) it's a matter of systemd taking too much of the ecosystem into one binary leaving no competition because competitors will have to use systemd to even interface with the kernel in the future.
Personally, I am all three of those, but it's different from person to person. Also the list above obviously isn't complete since I am not all people.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;45328833]There are plenty of distributions that don't use systemd, plenty of VERY good ones too.
It varies from person to person why they dislike it, but I think the majority think either
1) it's just too bloated, like there's too much stuffed into the final binary that they don't care about,
2) it's a matter of systemd taking too much of the ecosystem into one binary, producing a single point of failure, or
3) it's a matter of systemd taking too much of the ecosystem into one binary leaving no competition because competitors will have to use systemd to even interface with the kernel in the future.
Personally, I am all three of those, but it's different from person to person. Also the list above obviously isn't complete since I am not all people.[/QUOTE]
1) Isn't most of the "bloat" modular and won't load unless needed?
2) Don't even get me started about how much of the stuff in an average machine can be considered a single pont of failure. Nobody is complaining about those
3) So standardising the way you interface with the kernel is a bad thing for developers?
[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;45328890]1) Isn't most of the "bloat" modular and won't load unless needed?[/quote]
Not last I used it. It's possible they fixed this while I wasn't looking though.
[quote]2) Don't even get me started about how much of the stuff in an average machine can be considered a single pont of failure. Nobody is complaining about those[/quote]
Unless you're talking about hardware, most SPoFs won't cause a catastrophic system meltdown should they actually fail. The way my system is now, if vixie-cron or syslog-ng bites it, I'm still going to have a usable system, and it might even continue to be usable across reboots. If udev dies, I'm going to notice before shutdown/reboot, and I'm going to have enough of a system left over to fix the problem (and that problem is probably "I just pulled in the very latest and it's broken").
[quote]3) So standardising the way you interface with the kernel is a bad thing for developers?[/QUOTE]
By this logic, installing Windows 8 on every computer in existence and making computers unbootable if you use something else is standardizing the platform developers run their binaries on.
I've never used networkd etc. all that stuff that is part of the systemd project, I've only used systemd itself and journald.
I'd like to see some benchmarks, or hell anything, justifying that making udev dependant on systemd is worth it, though.
[IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/eMeiOX.png[/IMG]
good lord, Tomahawk is pretty heavy on the CPU when idle. on a i5 4670k, and yet it manages to utilize 1/4 of the CPU
I would like to try CentOS 7, but it absolutely refuses to install the Virtualbox Extensions. I keep getting a "bad return status error" when it tries to compile the kernel module. Which sucks, because it runs like garbage without it.
[QUOTE=PredGD;45332984][IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/eMeiOX.png[/IMG]
good lord, Tomahawk is pretty heavy on the CPU when idle. on a i5 4670k, and yet it manages to utilize 1/4 of the CPU[/QUOTE]
looks like its either stuck in an infinite loop or doing something processor intensive
yet again, new issue in regards with UEFI and rEFInd, still need to learn my ways around UEFI.
when I installed rEFInd, I assumed I'd need a fresh EFI partition so rEFInd could do its stuff. from my limited knowledge about it, the stuff required for rEFInd to know Windows is there used to be in the EFI partition before I wiped it, so as a result Windows isn't bootable from rEFInd and I'm not sure how to boot into it anymore.
I learned that the partition I wiped during the install was indeed Windows' recovery partition. it had kept the label so was easy enough to identify. boot partition for Windows is still intact, which efibootmgr says as well
[code]➜ boot efibootmgr
BootCurrent: 0005
Timeout: 1 seconds
BootOrder: 0005,0000,0001,0002
Boot0000* Windows Boot Manager
Boot0001* Hard Drive
Boot0002* UEFI: Built-in EFI Shell
Boot0005* rEFInd Boot Manager
[/code]
a crude fix would be to change the boot order, but that leaves me unable to boot back into linux. could always mount the EFI partition later and change it yet again, but it's far from an ideal solution. yet again my google-fu is failing me so I'm not sure how to manually add an entry to rEFInd so I can select Windows
I'm tempted to try out Gentoo. Anyone here use it? Thoughts?
[QUOTE=Adam.GameDev;45341345]I'm tempted to try out Gentoo. Anyone here use it? Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Great if you want to learn more about how a system is compiled, but bad if you've got a lot of shit to do and can't afford the CPU cycles it takes to compile things. I think it's rather educational, but in actual production you should know a lot about what you're doing.
Do you actually get any speed improvements?
[QUOTE=Adam.GameDev;45341522]Do you actually get any speed improvements?[/QUOTE]
Depends on whats gonna run and how you set it up.
When I last used it I didn't notice any difference compared to other distros.
[QUOTE=PredGD;45341269]yet again, new issue in regards with UEFI and rEFInd, still need to learn my ways around UEFI.
when I installed rEFInd, I assumed I'd need a fresh EFI partition so rEFInd could do its stuff. from my limited knowledge about it, the stuff required for rEFInd to know Windows is there used to be in the EFI partition before I wiped it, so as a result Windows isn't bootable from rEFInd and I'm not sure how to boot into it anymore.
I learned that the partition I wiped during the install was indeed Windows' recovery partition. it had kept the label so was easy enough to identify. boot partition for Windows is still intact, which efibootmgr says as well
[code]➜ boot efibootmgr
BootCurrent: 0005
Timeout: 1 seconds
BootOrder: 0005,0000,0001,0002
Boot0000* Windows Boot Manager
Boot0001* Hard Drive
Boot0002* UEFI: Built-in EFI Shell
Boot0005* rEFInd Boot Manager
[/code]
a crude fix would be to change the boot order, but that leaves me unable to boot back into linux. could always mount the EFI partition later and change it yet again, but it's far from an ideal solution. yet again my google-fu is failing me so I'm not sure how to manually add an entry to rEFInd so I can select Windows[/QUOTE]
rEFInd should automatically scan and find Windows for you, but that's only if you have it configured correctly.
You'll want to check out your "scanfor", "uefi_deep_legacy_scan", and maybe "also_scan_dirs" configuration option. Here's a reference for you to look at: [URL]http://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/configfile.html[/URL]
You installed Windows as UEFI right? I didn't have to configure refind at all to get it to find a UEFI windows install.
[QUOTE=Naelstrom;45342206]rEFInd should automatically scan and find Windows for you, but that's only if you have it configured correctly.
You'll want to check out your "scanfor", "uefi_deep_legacy_scan", and maybe "also_scan_dirs" configuration option. Here's a reference for you to look at: [URL]http://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/configfile.html[/URL]
You installed Windows as UEFI right? I didn't have to configure refind at all to get it to find a UEFI windows install.[/QUOTE]
Windows is installed as UEFI, yes. I tried setting scanfor and also_scan_dirs but it didn't pop up. checking the link you sent, I keep seeing them referring to /EFI/Microsoft/Windows/... which doesn't exist for me.
last time I used rEFInd, I didn't have to configure it at all either. :v: most likely I didn't wipe the EFI partition back then
all that is in my EFI folder is /EFI/refind and /EFI/tools
[QUOTE=PredGD;45342384] I keep seeing them referring to /EFI/Microsoft/Windows/... which doesn't exist for me. [/QUOTE]
[url=http://farmpolice.com/content/images/a6c1ae03.png]That's where my Microsoft Window's UEFI bootloader went.[/url] If it doesn't exist Windows may have installed its bootloader elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Adam.GameDev;45341522]Do you actually get any speed improvements?[/QUOTE]
With the default CFLAGS of "-O2 -march=native -pipe" you do get a fair bit of an improvement (unless you're on a top of the line i7 or something where everything just screams fastly anyway).
You can sometimes get a little bit more by setting march to match your processor but other than that changing CFLAGS doesn't change much
[QUOTE=PredGD;45341269]when I installed rEFInd, I assumed I'd need a fresh EFI partition so rEFInd could do its stuff. from my limited knowledge about it, the stuff required for rEFInd to know Windows is there used to be in the EFI partition before I wiped it, so as a result Windows isn't bootable from rEFInd and I'm not sure how to boot into it anymore.[/QUOTE]
You can install rEFInd to the EFI partition that is created by Windows. My boot stanza is
[code]
menuentry "Windows 7" {
icon /EFI/refind/icons/os_win.png
loader /EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi
}
[/code]
If Windows and rEFInd aren't on the same partition, you probably just need to change the volume. Just mount partitions until you find the one with bootmgfw.efi
[QUOTE=Larikang;45343473]You can install rEFInd to the EFI partition that is created by Windows. My boot stanza is
[code]
menuentry "Windows 7" {
icon /EFI/refind/icons/os_win.png
loader /EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi
}
[/code]
If Windows and rEFInd aren't on the same partition, you probably just need to change the volume. Just mount partitions until you find the one with bootmgfw.efi[/QUOTE]
I think he wiped all the Windows EFI stuff though, so bootmgfw doesn't exist
[QUOTE=lavacano;45343530]I think he wiped all the Windows EFI stuff though, so bootmgfw doesn't exist[/QUOTE]
yup, it's most likely gone
my partitions etc
[IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/JKY4gr.png[/IMG]
/dev/sda1 used to be the recovery partition for Windows, sda2 is EFI, sda3 is Windows reserved, sda4 is where Windows is installed, and sda5 and sda6 is Arch quite obviously
would the fix be simple? I imagine it would be possible to work it out with the files downloaded from somewhere for Win8.1, no?
[QUOTE=lavacano;45343530]I think he wiped all the Windows EFI stuff though, so bootmgfw doesn't exist[/QUOTE]
Ah. I was under the impression that you need that in order to boot Windows with UEFI. Wouldn't he need to recover that from the Windows install media?
[QUOTE=Larikang;45344506]Ah. I was under the impression that you need that in order to boot Windows with UEFI. Wouldn't he need to recover that from the Windows install media?[/QUOTE]
yep
i think recent versions of windows still have a button for that on the install media somewhere
[editline]9th July 2014[/editline]
or at least one for a command prompt so he can type "fixboot" or whatever the command is
[QUOTE=lavacano;45343465]With the default CFLAGS of "-O2 -march=native -pipe" you do get a fair bit of an improvement (unless you're on a top of the line i7 or something where everything just screams fastly anyway).[/QUOTE]
What about using -O3, or is there some reason that I shouldn't?
[QUOTE=Adam.GameDev;45347125]What about using -O3, or is there some reason that I shouldn't?[/QUOTE]
For certain applications this might work, but a lot of applications that are dependant on precision, it could break functionality.
One thign -O3 might do is optimise away all undefined behaviour, because the compiler is allowed to do that.
[quote]In the standards for these languages, the semantics of certain operations are undefined, so an implementation can assume that such operations never occur in program code--[/quote]
Even only this might cause interesting things to happen.
I'm really late on this but Mount and Blade: Warband now has a Linux port and today it has workshop support.
[QUOTE=lavacano;45343465]With the default CFLAGS of "-O2 -march=native -pipe" you do get a fair bit of an improvement (unless you're on a top of the line i7 or something where everything just screams fastly anyway).
You can sometimes get a little bit more by setting march to match your processor but other than that changing CFLAGS doesn't change much[/QUOTE]
I thought -march=native would automatically select the best optimization flags for your processor...I don't think setting, say, -march=core2 would yield any improvements over native
then again I don't use gentoo so ignore me
[QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;45349838]I thought -march=native would automatically select the best optimization flags for your processor...I don't think setting, say, -march=core2 would yield any improvements over native
then again I don't use gentoo so ignore me[/QUOTE]
Correct. -march=native -mtune=native is the best way to build for just the local machine. Obviously, if you need a binary to move between machines, that's when you drop the -march to the lowest denominator.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
