Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Nope... Nailed It (Score 4, Insightful) 123

by sjames (#48435201) Attached to: It's Not Developers Slowing Things Down, It's the Process

Especially funny. Rock Stars don't multi-task. They lock themselves away in a darkened office working on the currently interesting single problem until it is solved. Then they come out, decompress, and repeat.

Part of why they have rock star performance is that they don't multi-task and don't sit through endless meetings re-hashing yesterday's meeting.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 525

by sjames (#48430413) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

It might work as a dirty hack, but I would really like to have my fstab not be hackery. Noauto is supposed to mean not mounted on boot after all. I do know that systemd isn't actually issuing the mount command. I also know that once in the emergency shell, a simple mount /aux works perfectly (showing that the fstab and dependencies are fine).

There should be a way to alter systemd's configuration to let mount -a take care of fstab.

I'm a bit skeptical that a .mount file will behave any better since it's still part of the systemd world that has already proven it isn't up to the task. I may try it though just to see if systemd failures are at all hackable short of twisting it to resemble sysV.

Comment: Re:Exploding Rockets vs. Nuclear Power (Score 1) 474

by sjames (#48425429) Attached to: What Would Have Happened If Philae Were Nuclear Powered?

And still, all the fear would have been unfounded. Yes, from ESA's standpoint, it would be no consolation to know that the fear that was destroying them was unfounded.

Perhaps they should just say the space probes are powered by new and improved power pellets! (Pac Man approved!)

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 2) 525

by sjames (#48423051) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

The point here is that of all of the advocates claiming systemd skeptics are just afraid of change and that systemd is just fine as is cannot seem to come up with a solution to this problem. It's almost as if they don't actually know anything about the software they advocate...

As for solutions, I know a free one involving going back to sysvinit. I'm not going to get paid support for a test installation. If a simple problem can't be solved simply, it will just be rated not ready for prime time.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 525

by sjames (#48422253) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

It doesn't matter which it is, what I was using before didn't have it.

But beyond that, it refuses to tell me why it isn't just doing the right thing and none of the big systemd advocates here can seem to tell me how one might fix it or work around it.

Beyond that, the thing that is hanging up shouldn't exist in the first place. It has no business caring about anything but the identified (implicitly) dependence on /dev/disk/by-label/aux. Since that is present, it should attempt the mount. Were it designed with an appropriate philosophy, the part that is causing the problem wouldn't exist at all.

The way systemd seems resistant to workarounds is a real design problem IMHO.

All I see on various mailing lists is systemd people deeply confused and at a loss as to what should be done about this and similar problems that the old init system has handled flawlessly for a very long time. That suggests that systemd is not ready for production use. If there was a decent workaround for now, that could potentially be forgiven, but I have yet to see one offered.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 525

by sjames (#48418669) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

It is a bit different. The label had been created correctly by udev in /dev/disk/by-label such that once it dropped me to the shell 'mount /aux' was all that was needed to mount the filesystem correctly. If I could just get systemd to actually try the mount command, it would be fine.

I honestly have no idea what systemd thought it was waiting for and the journal doesn't say. If it would just do what I say, it would be fine.

Is there really nowhere I can just add 'mount /aux' to make it do the right thing?

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...