On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:29:17 -0600 David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > I can see that a post-mortem of what went wrong is useful, but I can't > understand why you say that systemd made the "wrong" assumption. > If you specify something wrongly, you can't really expect it to do > what you want it to do, or what sysv chanced to do, just to match your > own assumptions. > I think the point here is that systemd introduced new behaviour which caused a previously-working system to fail to boot in a way which could not have happened in all the years before systemd was introduced. This is exactly the kind of thing which gives server admins nightmares: we can never be sure that we've spotted every possible gotcha that may be lying in wait for us. -- Joe
