Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> writes: > I'd like people to think twice before opt-in for systemd. I just taked > with a friend working for redhat, and he told me how much he hates > it. He told me that if *anything* goes wrong in the boot process, then > basically, you're stuck, because the next thing will be waiting > forever.
How does this differ from sysvinit or, really, any init system going back to the earliest days of UNIX? I had to debug problems of that type on Solaris and even SunOS systems years ago. Either the boot is fully ordered, in which case each init script has to complete before the next can run and init scripts that don't complete stop the boot process, or it's dependency-based (whether via events or not) and runs potentially in parallel, in which case if a subsystem that provides a significant dependency doesn't start, nothing that depends on that subsystem will start either. So far as I can tell, this is the case for all the boot systems we're considering, including the one we're using now. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k42junz3....@windlord.stanford.edu
