Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2014-06-10 03:36, Anton Aylward wrote:
According to the systemd 'dogma', they want the ability to bring up the GUI in parallel with mounting disks -- that means /usr/share + /usr + /.
NOT!
That's mis-information.
The difference between sysvinit and systemd is that the latter identifies things that can be done in parallel.
Automatically (and dynamically?), yes.
The unit can be parsed to construct a dependency tree.
'/usr/share' can be mounted at the same time as '/home' but both are dependent on '/' being mounted. And do on.
That is the case with sysvinit as well, but sysvinit does EVERYTHING sequentially. It fails to exploit any inherent parallelism.
Well, no, the last implementations of sysvinit as used by openSUSE also started things in parallel, but defined statically, when inserting an init script. There was a makefile type of file that stored the dependencies and decided what was started when, what could be started in parallel to what. And it could be disabled.
And, by the way, this also meant that the openSUSE implementation *ignored* the symlinks in the rc?.d directories, and the numbers in their names!
People were surprised and came for help because they had created a symlink to a startup script, and it was never started automatically. In openSUSE you had to call insserv or chkconfig.
Which, I suppose, it is contrary to the original and documented unix way of things ;-)
This sequence and parallelism was defined by comments in the scripts, if they followed certain syntax. When services were inserted, the makefile was created, and the links.
So in other words, more vandalism among the self-appointed gods in the openSuSE community, capriciously breaking things without putting out any notice of changes. Considering how important the init system is, and how people UTTERLY rely on it to get things running automatically, it could have (AND SHOULD HAVE) been posted to this and other lists when the change was made in -factory, rather than people only finding out after they went through problems because init was not working they way it had always workde, and there was absolutely NO REASON to suspect, that, without notice, there would be changes to how sysv init had always worked. Has ANYBODY in SuSE heard the concept of CHANGE MANAGEMENT? It seems not, bcause there has been a verty strong trend for the last couple of years for them to recklessly and capriciously go around breaking thingss...and to laugh at anybody who complains. This sort of bullshit is why I stopped using or recommending Redhat 12 years ago, and now it's making Slackware look very attractive. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org