systemd - standard place to run stuff after the network is up?

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 12:27 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 21:22 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 13:08 -0500, Dan Williams a écrit :
> > 
> > > If you architect a system that accounts for networking changing states,
> > > then it works for *everyone*.  If you depend on networking always being
> > > there, then it only works for some subset of users that have one type of
> > > installation.  Having one architecture and one codebase (that handles
> > > both cases) generally means easier maintenance, feature addition, and
> > > fewer bugs.
> > 
> > Really, the problem with hardware handling changes in Fedora those past
> > years is not improved handling of changing states (which benefit every
> > kind of system), it's the way all those changes have been progressively
> > tied with the desktop session, and all the efforts to shut down
> > everything when no one is moving the local mice, or to make every
> > scenario single-device stopping the old one when a new 'better' one
> > appears.
> 
> This is very vague and generally seems like an attempt to attack as much
> as possible without providing any specifics that can be discussed.

No, it's an attempt to explain a general concept and not to point the
finger at anyone. Because as soon as you provide specifics, someone will
feel offended, get defensive, and refuse to listen to the general
message.

There's been a huge loss in communication on this list in the past years
when people started making everything personnal and it got difficult to
discuss a point without being accused of not being nice with X or Y¹.

Please stop trying to read nefarious intent between the lines and read
what's been actually written.

¹ For whatever value of X or Y again I didn't write X or Y so you could
play games putting names here

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot