Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
With systemd it's "systemd.unit=emergency.service". Somewhat more verbose, but I just set my alternate boot command line to it and I'm done.
>> systemd developers suggests that I can't get an environment
>> where services haven't been started in general,
>> but I can interactively start them
Who suggests that, and where? It's patently false. In an emergency.service environment you can "systemctl start foo.service" just like you normally do.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 23:27 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
"Some people try to imply that the shell was a good debugger. Well, it isn't really. In systemd we provide you with actual debugging features instead. For example: interactive debugging, verbose tracing, the ability to mask any component during boot, and more."
suggests to me that, if you have some problem booting with systemd, you get a special systemd debugger rather than the shell. This makes me worried, because I suspect that I might have problems unrelated to systemd, and might actually have to run the configuration tool for some other service that's needed in order to authenticate users, and a systemd-specific debugger might not make that feasible. However, the truth is that the shell is a good debugger, and it's what systemd actually provides, along with command-line tools to help debug systemd in particular. This is a particularly unfortunate statement, because it plays into the impression people have of systemd that the developers think the tools you understand aren't good and you need to use their new thing instead in order to work with systemd.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 23:56 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
Really, whom is this kind of discussion supposed to help? Grown-up people in computing ought to be able to make an argument based on facts.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 11:37 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Come on now. Why dirty a nice flamewar with nasty facts when you can have a stew of speculation and imputations of bad faith and attacks based on myths which are debunked in the very article this is a comment thread for?
The only thing we're missing is a nice car analogy! So let me provide one.
systemd's an Edsel with the trailer and aircraft-carrier-catapult attachments, sysvinit is a Peel Trident. (I just want a Volvo.)
Posted Jan 31, 2013 13:37 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 7:49 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
Wrong. You get a shell.
Of course you'd then use systemctl commands to figure out what's wrong with your boot (start services individually, etc.), but that's a Good Thing – you want to start your bootup jobs in the same environment as when booting regularly, otherwise you might mask the problem.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 8:53 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
Of your comment, my comment, systemd's actual behavior, and Lennert's original post, the only one that doesn't say that a shell plus systemctl is the right thing is Lennert's original post. That's why I said that *Lennert's writing* gives the wrong impression, and never said that systemd's *actual behavior* was wrong.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 17:33 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 16:18 UTC (Tue) by s0f4r (guest, #52284)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds