Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> writes: > Le 03/11/2015 17:24, Rainer Weikusat a écrit : >> Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> writes: >>> >>> I agree with you, and it was the first point in my mail, that the >>> servers should be able to cope with outages. >> That's not a matter of "should": They have to. Even if it's believed >> they're just using local IPC[*]. > > Yes, but let's consider that, maybe, some do not.
Well, yes, "sometimes, software has bugs". [...] > Let me explicite it: > > - Encourage authors to make outage-aware servers, which can then > be started in parallel; Worrying about 'starting servers in parallell' only makes sense if there's a real-world situation where this demonstrably makes a relevant difference. And I very much doubt that --- that's just another imaginary sugar-coating supposed to help selling systemd to people who are not expected to understand the issue. As someone recently wrote, Point remains: most of the "less-tech-savy" users will probably not even know what systemd is, or what the fuss is all about. It's all been seamless, without hitch. The OS boots and gives them a GUI, done. IOW, without the systemd marketing barrage, most people had never noticed it as there are no user-visible difference, IOW, it's not an improvement for them. > - Provide a supervisor able to handle dependencies for the > non-outage-aware, with a trivial readyness notification method. Can I have one which recites the Lord's prayer backwards prior to starting a server if I'm more attracted to other superstitions? _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng