3 ms·
You obviously haven't used any of them and I have a feeling that in fact you haven't used anything but systemd because your remarks about systemd ability to cre
by pi-e-sigma 3y ago
You obviously haven't used any of them and I have a feeling that in fact you haven't used anything but systemd because your remarks about systemd ability to create dependencies between mounts and services as something amazing is just hilarious.
- bravetraveler 3y agoSigh. I was hoping to be a bit more productive. I haven't used them, obviously, I asked - 'what's the difference'. They haven't even been named. Is this a troll? You obviously miss my point. In this hypothetical I'm picturing a systemd system with services and mounts. The recommendation appeared to be... have another service [or something] try to provide something that 'systemd', which is already present, can handle completely fine. So, I repeat, what's the difference? What am I missing? What's better than having the thing managing your services also manage your mounts? Between the lines I'm saying this isn't fancy work. I want these mounted and useful relationships and that's it. They serve a purpose; I need a compelling reason to replace init.