On 12/10/2014 at 06:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 10 dec 14, 08:53:08, tv.debian@googlemail.com wrote: > >> All this just because you won't admit that systemd took away a >> feature, and that it is systemd's business to bring it back. > > Mmm, I'll have to chime in here. The fact is, systemd never > implemented this feature, while your statement sounds like this did > work at some time but those evil systemd developers disabled it on > purpose, which I'm sure is not you intention :) It *did* work at one time: in sysvinit, which Debian has used until recently. We have been reminded repeatedly that many people (probably a majority) do not know or care about what init system they are running. For such a user, this is not a systemd-centric question; it is a Debian-centric one, and the responsibility of having caused it and for fixing it is on Debian. Debian chose to switch to systemd, and that switch introduced this bug; it is therefore Debian's "fault" that this regression occurred, and Debian's responsibility to see to it that the regression is fixed. > Also, the systemd developers have no obligation whatsoever to > implement any particular feature, regardless if that particular > feature was implemented by sysvinit or not. They do if they are going to advertise systemd as a replacement for sysvinit - which I believe they do, given that they have actively (and successfully) sought to convince multiple distributions to replace sysvinit with it. If it does not provide a feature which sysvinit provides, then it is not a full replacement. Given that systemd could have implemented this a long time ago (or even from the beginning), and has chosen not to, but still is presenting itself as a replacement for sysvinit, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to say that systemd has taken away a feature which was provided by sysvinit. > Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic > fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the > default for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for > me on systems with bad power (you'd still get the "bad shutdown" > check). _Every_ system has "bad power", unless you somehow have a computer which either does not need electricity to run or runs in an environment where power will never be lost under any circumstances where you still care about the computer. Battery backups, or UPSes (which are mostly just another form of the same), or generators, et cetera, are just ways of staving off power loss further; they do not and cannot eliminate it entirely, and they can always fail unexpectedly. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature