On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:54:34PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > SysV init leaves all the really hard problems to these, as it cannot > > really do much by itself. That's a fact that people that keep yelling > > "but SysV init was so easy!" keep finessing.. > > Absolutely. And the sysvinit boot system have lots of unsolved problems > we never got around to figuring out, related to disk and other device > setup. The main cause is the fact that the linux kernel is no longer > predicatble and sequencial, but asynchonous. No amount of wishful > thinking is going to bring is back to a world where static sequencing of > boot events is going to handle all the interdependencies.
Systemd fails to solve them as well -- while introducing a lot of unsolved problems on its own, such as degraded RAID problems (no, it's not possible do to that in an event-driven way, you need a static sequence in at least some cases). But one thing we can agree on: the situation both approaches try to deal with is a mess. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 10 people enter a bar: 1 who understands binary, ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ 1 who doesn't, D who prefer to write it as hex, ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ and 1 who narrowly avoided an off-by-one error.