<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/3/21 Genes MailLists <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@sapience.com">lists@sapience.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 03/21/2011 04:18 AM, cornel panceac wrote:<br></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">
> imho, selecting a few<br>
> required services (like assigning priorities) and making the others<br>
> optional may relax the problem, making the system more stable in the<br>
> long term.<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div> This kinda doesn't make any sense if you think about it ... if people<br>
need services then they would have to start them afterwards - how ?<br>
Using another approach to replace the program (systemd) designed to that<br>
exact job - the right answer is fix systemd.<br><br></blockquote><div>well, i never had in mind replacing systemd :) i only think some services are needed for _any_ system to start, while other are optional so, it makes sense to me to take care of the required services first and after, of all the others.<br>
</div></div><font><b><br></b></font><br>
<br>