Someone else posted the full list of systemd verification mechanisms in this subthread. I'm going to refer you to that.
And in cases where there is no mechanism in place, for example when systemd is executing an rc script, I have the exact same mechanisms you describe: roll them myself by scripting.
I fail to see the problem here, the systemd way is a superset of the rc way. If you think that is worse, then I stand by my 'irrational' comment.
I have the exact same setup, and I experienced the reverse: using sysv init rpcbind would deadlock with networking, because networking tried to start nfs. Switching to systemd solved that problem.
rc scripts offer the opportunity to either make the script wait until the service is responsive
How?
As someone who has written his own rc scripts, I can tell you: there are no trustworthy mechanisms to do what you say rc scripts do as a matter of course.
And yeah, systemd running a standard rc script can't test for these conditions either. Somehow playing this as a systemd weakness seems a bit... irrational to me.
Wait, what? It's the other way around. If the dependencies are systemd managed, systemd will wait until they report back to be up and running before starting dependants. This is opposed to the SysV rc way, which just blithely ignores all output and continues booting unless the rc script actually hangs.
In fact, one of the most common complaints is that systemd keeps hanging on filesystems in fstab that are not mandatory to mount on boot, instead of ignoring the mount error and leaving them to be mounted manually later.
Aside from the fact that my snark attacked a desire vs. a conclusion, do you have any other reason to call it a strawman but for an obviously personal one (you've been whining at me for a couple of posts now)?
It is still a false dichotomy. No amount of nitpicking changes the fact that the very logic of his statement is fallacious.
Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state,
Since such a thing as absolute liberty and privacy is impossible, we must be living in a nanny state, watched, coddled and protected from all possible harm.
<Looks around> Hmm. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and not employ such easily dismissed false dichotomies?
NO. My argument was not that sysvinit was way too buggy. Your argument was that it was perfect, and I was disputing that by giving a single example of one of the possible ways it can break.
It's in fact this kind of dishonest arguing that is making those of us that want to look objectively at the various init systems move away even faster from SysV. Be proud of it. Now fuck off.
Shitty scripts are part and parcel in SysV rc. The whole system is an attractive nuisance for badly hacked together shell scripts, and it's a wonder it's held out as long as it did.
Sigh. Why do you have to turn this into another dick size war? I was trying to be reasonable by pointing out that SysV had some failure modes that systemd tries to address, and that one could at least accept that as a common ground upon which to debate the merits of both systems, but apparently you don't want to give even that much.
And then people complain that Lennart is occasionally a bit crabby online. Frankly, I'm starting to understand the guy.
Oh fuck off. You're essentially arguing that Germans who denounced their Jewish neighbours to the Gestapo are not responsible for those neighbourse being gassed, because all they did was speak, it was the SS that did the gassing.
Anyone recognises your 'speech is speech, it is those acting on the speech doing the bad things' as an idiotic bit of sophism that adult people should not take seriously.
Yes, it was. Because the networking script tries to start nfs. There is a circular dependency in the scripts that is hard to debug.
And before you say that I should just edit those scripts: every next update may overwrite them, whereas systemd handles this dependency sanely. Why should I muck about with scripts then?
I just told you that systemd handles the dependency between rpcbind and the network coming up in a sane and reliable way, whereas the init scripts don't. What more do you fucking want?
Tell that to my girlfriend. She can do most maintenance on her workstation, but she had to have me look at boot deadlocks about twice a month, all because/etc/init.d/rpcbind and/etc/init.d/networking were in a race, and the NFS mounts lost.
SysV rc is not 'perfectly functional' by a long shot. Both at home and at work I keep running into limitations that systemd solves. Systemd comes with other bugs, and I've been hit with one or two of them, but they were, for me, easier to solve than SysV rc race conditions and deadlocks.
The growing hairball is SysV rc. Systemd is an attempt to solve it. You may disagree with the solution, fine. But stop denying that it is at least an attempt at solving existing problems.
I have indeed no valid counterarguments I wish to present, as with your lack of reading comprehension and shaky grasp of logic it would be throwing pearls to the swine.
And for someone claiming that other people should just grow a thicker skin, you're a massive hypocrite to blow up a remark on your immaturity into a molehill.
Of course, emotional overreaction is another sign of your immaturity.
Really, for someone who does not know what 'begging the question' in formal logic means, you shouldn't talk logic. I did use it correctly, and from the context it is obvious that I know of both the correct and incorrect usages.
If someone points out that you sound immature, effectively shouting "AM NOT!" does not help, you know.
And if you hadn't noticed, I had decided quite a few posts ago that you're not worth arguing with; on the other hand, your posts are so disarmingly immature and so gratifyingly full of insult material, that you make an excellent target for insults.
Because your posts sound like the screeds of a teenager with an entitlement complex. That's why people keep assuming you are one.
Really, just begging the question that the only real violence is physical, that's straight out of the mental world of the Randroids, making you either a teenager with zero life experience or as mentally stunted as the Holy Messiah and her Inner Circle.
And I'm not saying your argument is incorrect because you are young (that would be an ad hominem fallacy). I'm saying that your use of an incorrect argument make you sound young. There is a difference. Try and see if you can spot it.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone else posted the full list of systemd verification mechanisms in this subthread. I'm going to refer you to that.
And in cases where there is no mechanism in place, for example when systemd is executing an rc script, I have the exact same mechanisms you describe: roll them myself by scripting.
I fail to see the problem here, the systemd way is a superset of the rc way. If you think that is worse, then I stand by my 'irrational' comment.
I assume you wanted to answer my parent, as you are just agreeing with me here.
I have the exact same setup, and I experienced the reverse: using sysv init rpcbind would deadlock with networking, because networking tried to start nfs. Switching to systemd solved that problem.
So we have two competing anecdotes. Now what?
How?
As someone who has written his own rc scripts, I can tell you: there are no trustworthy mechanisms to do what you say rc scripts do as a matter of course.
And yeah, systemd running a standard rc script can't test for these conditions either. Somehow playing this as a systemd weakness seems a bit ... irrational to me.
Wait, what? It's the other way around. If the dependencies are systemd managed, systemd will wait until they report back to be up and running before starting dependants. This is opposed to the SysV rc way, which just blithely ignores all output and continues booting unless the rc script actually hangs.
In fact, one of the most common complaints is that systemd keeps hanging on filesystems in fstab that are not mandatory to mount on boot, instead of ignoring the mount error and leaving them to be mounted manually later.
Aside from the fact that my snark attacked a desire vs. a conclusion, do you have any other reason to call it a strawman but for an obviously personal one (you've been whining at me for a couple of posts now)?
It is still a false dichotomy. No amount of nitpicking changes the fact that the very logic of his statement is fallacious.
Since such a thing as absolute liberty and privacy is impossible, we must be living in a nanny state, watched, coddled and protected from all possible harm.
<Looks around> Hmm. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and not employ such easily dismissed false dichotomies?
Sadly, reality is not a James Bond flick.
You're an idiot if you don't see that in your case no-one is donating money to put the force of law against you.
Well, to coin one top tech figure: Brendan Eich obviously cares, since he paid good money to prevent Tim from ever marrying if Tim were so inclined.
I'd like to see a citation on this. You wouldn't be the first to be hoodwinked by the Telegraaf Media Groep into believing a canard.
NO. My argument was not that sysvinit was way too buggy. Your argument was that it was perfect, and I was disputing that by giving a single example of one of the possible ways it can break.
It's in fact this kind of dishonest arguing that is making those of us that want to look objectively at the various init systems move away even faster from SysV. Be proud of it. Now fuck off.
Well then call me an idiot and have done.
Shitty scripts are part and parcel in SysV rc. The whole system is an attractive nuisance for badly hacked together shell scripts, and it's a wonder it's held out as long as it did.
All this IMO, of course.
Sigh. Why do you have to turn this into another dick size war? I was trying to be reasonable by pointing out that SysV had some failure modes that systemd tries to address, and that one could at least accept that as a common ground upon which to debate the merits of both systems, but apparently you don't want to give even that much.
And then people complain that Lennart is occasionally a bit crabby online. Frankly, I'm starting to understand the guy.
Oh fuck off. You're essentially arguing that Germans who denounced their Jewish neighbours to the Gestapo are not responsible for those neighbourse being gassed, because all they did was speak, it was the SS that did the gassing.
Anyone recognises your 'speech is speech, it is those acting on the speech doing the bad things' as an idiotic bit of sophism that adult people should not take seriously.
So fuck off already. I'm done replying.
Yes, it was. Because the networking script tries to start nfs. There is a circular dependency in the scripts that is hard to debug.
And before you say that I should just edit those scripts: every next update may overwrite them, whereas systemd handles this dependency sanely. Why should I muck about with scripts then?
I just told you that systemd handles the dependency between rpcbind and the network coming up in a sane and reliable way, whereas the init scripts don't. What more do you fucking want?
I just gave you an example, and you ask for examples? What are you, stupid?
Tell that to my girlfriend. She can do most maintenance on her workstation, but she had to have me look at boot deadlocks about twice a month, all because /etc/init.d/rpcbind and /etc/init.d/networking were in a race, and the NFS mounts lost.
SysV rc is not 'perfectly functional' by a long shot. Both at home and at work I keep running into limitations that systemd solves. Systemd comes with other bugs, and I've been hit with one or two of them, but they were, for me, easier to solve than SysV rc race conditions and deadlocks.
The growing hairball is SysV rc. Systemd is an attempt to solve it. You may disagree with the solution, fine. But stop denying that it is at least an attempt at solving existing problems.
Oh look, you can parrot other posts. Polly want a cracker?
BTW, that's yet another high school age 'joke'. You're doing a real good job protesting your maturity.
Now, go back to 4chan, and let the adults have a serious conversation, OK?
I have indeed no valid counterarguments I wish to present, as with your lack of reading comprehension and shaky grasp of logic it would be throwing pearls to the swine.
And for someone claiming that other people should just grow a thicker skin, you're a massive hypocrite to blow up a remark on your immaturity into a molehill.
Of course, emotional overreaction is another sign of your immaturity.
No, I didn't. I wasn't arguing boundless freedom of speech, the post I was answering was.
It is quite obvious from the context that I think that my first hypothetical is not, and should not be, uncurtailed speech.
Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it?
Really, for someone who does not know what 'begging the question' in formal logic means, you shouldn't talk logic. I did use it correctly, and from the context it is obvious that I know of both the correct and incorrect usages.
If someone points out that you sound immature, effectively shouting "AM NOT!" does not help, you know.
And if you hadn't noticed, I had decided quite a few posts ago that you're not worth arguing with; on the other hand, your posts are so disarmingly immature and so gratifyingly full of insult material, that you make an excellent target for insults.
Because your posts sound like the screeds of a teenager with an entitlement complex. That's why people keep assuming you are one.
Really, just begging the question that the only real violence is physical, that's straight out of the mental world of the Randroids, making you either a teenager with zero life experience or as mentally stunted as the Holy Messiah and her Inner Circle.
And I'm not saying your argument is incorrect because you are young (that would be an ad hominem fallacy). I'm saying that your use of an incorrect argument make you sound young. There is a difference. Try and see if you can spot it.
And yet I don't see you trying to defend his idiotic contention that speech cannot be violence.
The complete naÃvety of the content of his posts bolster my position more than your snark defends his. Too bad for you.