| |||||||||||||
Quotes of the weekQuotes of the weekPosted Mar 4, 2011 12:31 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)In reply to: Quotes of the week by mezcalero Parent article: Quotes of the week this is just a warning. You may ignore it if you wish. That is a bad user interface design. Shove some stuff to the user's face that he can (and in most cases should) ignore. This leads to users ignoring all warnings in the future. If it's not relevant - don't show it. If systemd itself works fine, but the interaction with udev leads to an error - produce a meaningful error message then.
(Log in to post comments)
Quotes of the week Posted Mar 4, 2011 12:36 UTC (Fri) by Darkmere (subscriber, #53695) [Link]
The issue is rather that the failure mode is hard to decipher and debug. Due to fallback and "robustness" of the stack, rather than breaking horribly when things are not where expected, much of this software will shut up and move on, doing it's best to avoid your system being unusable.
However, when you end up with a net result that mostly does not function, you have to get your warning from somewhere, and getting it from the init process is as good as any.
Also, remember that the kind of user who'd put /usr on it's own partition is not likely the user who'd ignore the errors or click through them. It's a user who's technically savvy, has enough knowhow of the oldschool things to commit to such a task, and as such, are well served by this warning.
|
|||||||||||||