688
Average systemd debate
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
688 points (95.6% liked)
linuxmemes
20705 readers
1074 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Cool ! The default should smarter than bork by default.
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.
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????
The system failed for no good reason, failing is exactly what it should never ever do. If it had just continued, everything would have been fine.
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.
Sorry if it looked otherwise, I was agreeing to BCsven. I agree with you