SystemD - Linux Lite Guide

[Wirezfree]

@llamjake05

Code:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install systemd-ui

In Menu start to type system, and select "systemadm"

[valtam]

I've built packages for Linux Lite 3.0 for this application, it looks the easiest to use:

https://github.com/mmstick/systemd-manager

Code:

sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install systemd-manager -y

I won't include it by default just yet in 3.0 as I'm worried inexperienced users will bork their system.

[img height=600 width=719]http://i.imgur.com/8LOCJCy.png[/img]

Menu, System, Systemd Manager

[valtam]

I've talked to the developer, and he's happy to entertain sensible suggestions for this application. If you have any suggestions, please put them in this thread. Thank you

[nomko]

I've talked to the developer, and he's happy to entertain sensible suggestions for this application. If you have any suggestions, please put them in this thread. Thank you

My first opinion after glazing at that screenshot you posted: make the description easier to understand. No difficult languages, no hard-to-read abracadabra. Just plain, simple, easy to read and understand explanation for any "dummy". Too much difficult and technical stuff will scare of the inexperienced user.

[Wirezfree]

@nomko

This is a dilemma, the tool allows users to enable and disable certain services, by it's nature it is technical.
With no disrespect to you(or other users) unless you fully understand the "technical" impact(implication) of enabling/disabling certain things you could break your install, or stop it booting.
You may think "oh that looks O.K to disable, but something else may rely on that service." It needs to be used with caution.

just my own thoughts/comments...

[valtam]

Spot on Dave

[liamjake05]

Add this application in Lite Software and what about making a basic and an advanced version off Linux Lite. Inexperienced users will download the basic version while experts download the advanced version.

[nomko]

@nomko

This is a dilemma, the tool allows users to enable and disable certain services, by it's nature it is technical.
With no disrespect to you(or other users) unless you fully understand the "technical" impact(implication) of enabling/disabling certain things you could break your install, or stop it booting.
You may think "oh that looks O.K to disable, but something else may rely on that service." It needs to be used with caution.

That's what i ment. By making the explanation more "dummy" proof these mistakes can be avoided. With too much technical abracadabra and a lesser understanding the mistake is made easier. If the explanation was made in such way that it also shows which applications rely on which service, it can be prevented that some system dependent services are shut down with unwanted results. Or, when turning off a service, some pop-up dialog box appears informing the users that the service they try to shut down is also required for application (...). It can be done easily. But i agree with you that any change has to be done with precaution, experienced user or not.

[Wirezfree]

@nomko

Again, it's not that simple...
Let's assume a clean install of LL out of the box as 50 services running, so that 50 lots of dev time to re-write what they do in "plain English", times that by each language.?
Then the dev's have to work out all the interdependency's, just for the standard ones, how much time is that.??

Now you have your clean install, and start installing other programs, some of which will have services, who is going to re-write those in simple terms.?
The LL devs have no idea what users are going to install, they can't re-write every explanation for every service.?
Then you have the interdependency's, who going to work out all those.?

It would be 100's & 100's of hours of work for the devs.??
I would rather have the devs work on a solid, stable LL itself,
rather than something that will be of interest to a small number of users.


Again, my assessment & take on it.

[trinidad]

Normal long message posting boot allows time for several things to take place, fsck, ram and rom flash, cron jobs, ram balancing adjustments on 64bit dual boot systems, dual port boards, one UEFI, other legacy, etc. All of my four personal; machines are setup to boot message post, and any machine that leaves my bench is setup that way. Long boot times before the grub selection screen are safer, even anti-virus can be added, and then you have time to get a cup of coffee. A minute or so extra after, until the chosen OS login screen, is not particularly annoying to me. Boot speed has nothing to do with OS speed. Any linux system on a machine with enough ram 4gig or more, and at least a SATA disk, can be slimmed down and configured to load mostly into ram using Slack tools, and run lightening fast. Fast boot does not mean fast system, and fast system does not always mean hardened system though that is sometimes the case; i/e Debian. The more important question is: How much does the tool in question increase the weight of the system, and is it worth having on that basis? That may be a moot point as well, considering I often encounter windows7 systems using 70gig or more of disk space for the OS itself. The speed improvement of this OS compared to windows10 on the same Dell computer I have in my home for family use is readily evident. Perhaps separating sudo and root, and adding a root choice to the login screen like Kali, would make the tool failsafe, but again this would increase the weight of the system. Best wishes.
Trinidad