[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Headless server just got suspended by updating systemd

On 26/11/14 12:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 26/11/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> And *what do we know about the original "customisation"* that was
>> made - which may have 'some' bearing on the "badness" of the
>> upgrade/update "defaults"??
> Oh, I get it,

Patently, and demonstrably - you do *not*.

Assuming your best intentions[*1], let me try and make it simple for you:-
It's considered Best Practise to *identify*[*2] the problem *before*
attempting to *solve* it. e.g.:-
if a plane falls from the sky and it's discovered that a critical
component was broken - first determine whether component failed before
implementing more rigorous manufacturing requirements. Lest it be later
be discovered that a new component was not installed (maintenance
problem) or sabotage. i.e. you can't fix a problem you don't understand.

In this instance - while Patrick has done the "right" thing by finding
and publishing a solution, he hasn't provided any information about what
he originally used for suspend - and how, or if, the laptop was not
previously suspending. Only that it was a long time ago and he doesn't
(<[🔎] CAJVvKsOHyOymUWrDPA1GLC7daqDeFkcPhj_FDV3SXj3wUS-DGw@mail.gmail.com>).

FWIW - I "suspect" that, provisionally, laptop-detect should ask before
defaulting to suspend. I don't "know" that it doesn't - or whether,
somehow, systemd over-rides it if it does. I do "know" from similar
circumstances[*3] that using the late option in pre-seeding to remove
laptop-detect prevents suspend.

So before debating the upgrade process it 'might' be best to try and
recreate the scenario don't you think?

[*1] The triumph of optimism over experience?
[*2] Which requires "research". Your fallacious "conclusions" about me
demonstrate a poor grasp of what "research" means. i.e. Searching for
"evidence" to confirm a belief is *not* research. It leads only to
confirmation bias. Your instance being a case in point.
[*3] an old Gateway laptop with a broken screen used as a firewall

> you think Debian is perfect and that systemd could not
> possibly be the cause of the problem

No. I suggest you brush up on your reading skills and save yourself the
awkward gynastics required to sustain your unrealistic "views".
Suggesting that the original set-up be considered so that the systemd
installation/release upgrade process causes less problems is
antithetical to your flimsy excuse for a personal attack.

In short, you are 'trying' too hard.

> -- that's funny

Please enjoy your snortle.

> ; now I understand

Your "perception" is misguided.

> why you are so unreasonable with people having issues with systemd.

Again, your "perception" is misguided. I have a great deal of patience
for people with genuine problems resulting from them installing systemd.
Problematic people not so much. There's a difference.

> In short, you are deluded.

Your, deserved, opinion says nothing of me and speaks volumes of you.

> A.

It would be nice if I could have used the time replying to your
obstreperous and bilious attack helping people with Debian problems.

"Don't be smart, you dunno wot you're saying" ~Snortle La Darse 90-250-400

Reply to: