this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
766 points (95.5% liked)

linuxmemes

21355 readers
1217 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
    •  

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    766
    Average systemd debate (lemmy.world)
    submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by renzev@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    131 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] Asetru 52 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

    systemd gets stuck because it's trying to mount two separate partitions to the same mount point

    Uh... Sounds like it's not really systemd's fault, your setup is just terrible.

    I've tried fixing it, but all I did was break it more.

    If you're unable to fix it, maybe get somebody else? Like, this doesn't sound like it's an unfixable issue...

    [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

    Uh… Sounds like it’s not really system’s fault, your setup is just terrible.

    I don't know his specific issue, but the general behavior of systemd going completely nuts when something is a bit 'off' in some fashion that is supremely confusing. Sure, there's a 'mistake', but good luck figuring out what that mistake is. It's just systemd code tends to be awfully picky in obscure ways.

    Then when someone comes along with a change to tolerate or at least provide a more informative error when some "mistake" has been made is frequently met with "no, there's no sane world where a user should be in that position, so we aren't going to help them out of that" or "that application does not comply with standard X", where X is some standard the application developer would have no reason to know exists, and is just something the systemd guys latched onto.

    See the magical privilege escalation where a user beginning with a number got auto-privileges, and Pottering fought fixing it because "usernames should never begin with a number anyway".

    [–] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago

    I love that mentality to development

    If it has a buffer overflow exploit that caused it to execute arbitrary code is his response that people shouldn't be sending that much data into that port anyway so we're not going to fix it?

    (I feel like this shouldn't require a /s but I'm throwing it in anyway)