Re: why do we use systemd?
On 05/07/2014 11:01, Reco wrote:
I don't know, I've just wanted to notify people this approach is not the
best. My opinion is, the SystemV was good. There were built many other
daemon (dbus, ifup/down scripts) which handled the hw changes, so I
really don't understand, why the system drop something which worked
Ok, I'll bite.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:21:01 +0100
Balint <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Just read them and protest to developer drop this piece of sh*t!
Who should be contacted for this 'drop', in your option?
This implementation is going to become Linux to Windows.
Your user-agent says:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
Can you please elaborate why exactly turning anything into Windows
Indeed, today I use Windows because I'm not home.
What do you think? According to my knowledge (maybe it has some gaps)
the systemd replace the init process which means it became the first
process. You can't restart just if you restart the box. But correct me
if I'm wrong.
The system will
have main almighty process which can't be updated without restart.
Please research some more before making such assumptions.
Related by update, plus, if the PID 1 process handles everything, (HW
changes, network, logs, etc) and will have crash, it will crash the system.
that process will be corrupted the all system is f****d.
Pid=1 process crash = kernel panic. It's well-known Linux behaviour
since '91. How exactly systemd is different in this regard?
Why did we choose it?
I really do NOT understand.
sorry, I can't reach this site.