On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 05:14:20PM -0700, Sam M. wrote:
Dirk you should probably take your Seroquel before writing to this list; you not only come across as a complete out of touch with reality moron but as somebody who's in great need of psychiatric care.
Explain why mount is able to mount files systems without some retarded other database, but systemd is too stupid to just call for mount? I'm seriously interested in the twisted thinking that would construct this. The answer seems to be that they don't want mount or /etc/fstab files and just decided to throw the ole unix guys a bone. I wonder if you can rip up systemd and use it for Windows. They don't have a clearly readable, easy to understand /etc/fstab file either. and when windows mounts things all screwed up and backwards, I have no idea how to fix it and neither does MS. Just stuff everything into regedit and hope it works. I'm not sure what is sadder, that this was adopted and written with Red Hats blessing, that it has been widely implimented, OR that you have supposed 'engineers' and free software people defending this.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Dirk Gently <dirk.gently00@gmail.com> wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
See SYSTEMD.MOUNT(5)
<quote> Mount units may either be configured via unit files, or via /etc/fstab (see fstab(5) for details). Mounts listed in /etc/fstab will be converted into native units dynamically at boot and when the configuration of the system manager is reloaded. See systemd-fstab-generator(8) for details about the conversion. </quote>
Which violates the computing principle of ONE SOURCE for each piece of data.
Having both /etc/fstab and "mounting units" (whatever the FUCK that means), is deliberately taking things back to the 1950's, when, frankly, we didn't understand principles of sound programming practices nearly as well as we do today.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org