[arch-general] testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

[mike cloaked]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
> Hi Heiko,
>
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Heiko Baums <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:
>> Why am I not surprised?
>
> Why should you be? I'm not. I don't think anyone finds it surprising
> that software has bugs, or that actively developed software has the
> occasional regression. It will happen from time to time, even with
> systemd. It will happen more with systemd than with sysvinit. The
> reason is that sysvinit is no longer being developed, and no changes
> means no regressions. No surprises here.
>
>> Yes, binary init system is so much better than a script based init
>> system.
>
> The correct comparison would be with sysvinit and not with initscript
> (as the bug is in PID1 and not in any of the helpers/serivce files).
>
>> And Poetterix is so damn good, so advanced, such an evolution
>> and so much better than the common and over 40 years well tested
>> sysvinit.
>>
>> Come on systemd fanboys, here you have the first example. There's more
>> to come. I'll get my popcorn.
>
> I hope you realise that when you speak of "Poetterix" and "fanboys"
> you are being a troll (there is no "opinion" in here, just inflamatory
> rhetoric). You are trying to make people angry rather than contribute
> to the discussion.
>
> As a whole, your message did not add anything useful, as you merely
> said "I told you so". We all are able to see that there was a bug, we
> all are able to see that this is very unfortunate. However, no one
> expected bugs never to happen in testing. It happens in all software,
> from the kernel up. We obviously strive to make it a rare occurrence,
> but especially architecture-specific bugs might be hard to catch.
>
> I'd respectfully request you to stay on-topic and constructive in your
> future contributions to this mailinglist.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom

Well said....

-- 
mike c