On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 18:10:45 -0700
David Benfell <benfell(a)parts-unknown.org> wrote:
...snip...
Then, and only then, did I discover there was even a
network-online.target. Please understand, the time when things are
broken is not the time when I
want to explore rat holes. As it turned out, this *wasn't* a rat
hole, but yet an additional layer of complexity.
A layer of complexity, by the way, whose purpose has yet to be
explained, and which rests on top of all the other complexity that
others in this thread have complained about.
Were you tying your services to specific IP addresses?
I'm curious why this would have changed for you folks so recently.
Was this a bug with systemd-208-19.fc20?
Which returns us back--and I hope I'm recalling the initial
posting
in this thread correctly--to the beginning of this thread. Do we
really need this complexity for the sake of a few seconds?
No. We need it for all the other reasons.
Lennarts blog host seems to be having some problem, but from google
cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rm-N94-I044J:0pointe...
Theres tons and tons of things that systemd does well that there was no
way to do in the sysvinit world.
But there's something more insidious about this as well.
The mantra I learned as a system administrator was, if it ain't
broken, don't fix it. The message I'm getting from this thread, when
people point out (correctly, as far as I know) that all the
distributions are going for the latest greatest shiny thing, is that
they're abandoning that mantra.
sysvinit was broken and couldn't do lots of things that modern distros
wanted to do.
kevin