4 ms·

No. I'm saying that relying on startup sequencing is a bad idea full stop.

• the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
  That's why systemd does dependency tracking and socket activation instead of sequencing.
  • d0 13y ago
    It needs to do neither of those as well.
    • mercurial 13y ago
      You're certainly entitled to your opinion about dependency tracking being an unnecessary luxury, and I'm sure you will find a number of Linux distributions and/or BSDs within your spartan requirements. Not to mention that you can at least for the time being stay with sysvinit (though this won't solve your issue on Debian, since it reads dependencies via a horrible hack in the comments of the init scripts).
      • d0 13y ago
        I'm a FreeBSD and Windows person so yes you are right. sysvinit dependency management is horrible as well so I cannot complain about your point there.
• mercurial 13y ago
  But you're not making a good point. If the network goes down, anything which depends on it will also go down. That's a much stronger guarantee than "let's hope this application handles network failure graciously and will kindly start working again as soon as the network is restored".
  • mydecombinator 13y ago
    So the system will be busy starting and stopping services in case of faulty network, instead of having them sit there patiently while the line continues to flap? Great idea - not sure when Cisco will copycat that one, though...