777
Average systemd debate (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 47 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I feel like anyone who genuinely has a strong opinion on this and isn't actively developing something related has too much time on their hands ricing their desktop and needs to get a job

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    My full-time job literally involves dealing with systemd's crap. There is a raspberry pi that controls all of our signage. Every time it is powered on, systemd gets stuck because it's trying to mount two separate partitions to the same mount point, whereupon I have to take a keyboard and a ladder, climb up the ceiling, plug in the keyboard, and press Enter to get it to boot. I've tried fixing it, but all I did was break it more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    systemd gets stuck because it's trying to mount two separate partitions to the same mount point

    Uh... Sounds like it's not really systemd's fault, your setup is just terrible.

    I've tried fixing it, but all I did was break it more.

    If you're unable to fix it, maybe get somebody else? Like, this doesn't sound like it's an unfixable issue...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Uh… Sounds like it’s not really system’s fault, your setup is just terrible.

    I don't know his specific issue, but the general behavior of systemd going completely nuts when something is a bit 'off' in some fashion that is supremely confusing. Sure, there's a 'mistake', but good luck figuring out what that mistake is. It's just systemd code tends to be awfully picky in obscure ways.

    Then when someone comes along with a change to tolerate or at least provide a more informative error when some "mistake" has been made is frequently met with "no, there's no sane world where a user should be in that position, so we aren't going to help them out of that" or "that application does not comply with standard X", where X is some standard the application developer would have no reason to know exists, and is just something the systemd guys latched onto.

    See the magical privilege escalation where a user beginning with a number got auto-privileges, and Pottering fought fixing it because "usernames should never begin with a number anyway".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I love that mentality to development

    If it has a buffer overflow exploit that caused it to execute arbitrary code is his response that people shouldn't be sending that much data into that port anyway so we're not going to fix it?

    (I feel like this shouldn't require a /s but I'm throwing it in anyway)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Curious, how does changing one of them to a different mount point make things worse?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    A typo in fstab shouldn't wreck the system. Why is that not resilient ? I added an extra mount point to an empty partition but forgot to actually create it in LVM.

    During boot, device not found and boot halted, on a computer with no monitor/keyboard

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Cool ! The default should smarter than bork by default.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Its a 'failsafe' , like if part of the system depends on that drive mounting then if it fails then don't continue. Not the expected default, but probably made sense at some point. Like if brakes are broken don't allow starting truck, type failsafe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yea like the default is smart? How is it supposed to know if that's critical or not at that point? The alternative is for it to silently fail and wait for something else to break instead of failing gracefully? I feel like I'm growing more and more petty and matching the language of systemd haters but like just think about it for a few minutes????

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    the default is smart

    Looking at the systems that are supported, it makes the greatest sense to have the safest failure mode as default. If fault tolerance is available, that can be handled in the entry but, it makes sense but to assume. Having that capability built into the default adds more complexity and reduces support for systems that are not tolerant of a missing mount.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Edit: just saw your other comment, so this may not apply to you now....Not that the default is smart, but the default has been set to fail a boot if parts are missing. Imagine a rocket launch system check, is temperature system online, no, fail and abort. While as users -- for convenience--we want the system to boot even though a drive went offline, that may not be best default for induatrial applications. Or where another system relylies on first one to be up and coherent. So we have to use the nofail option, to contine the boot on missing drive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As someone who has strong opinions on this, and not only has a job but has a job related to exactly sort of thing.... We use freebsd.

    Specifically to avoid shit like systemd, and other questionable choices forced down people's throats by idiots who can't stop touching things that work well because they didn't invent it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •