Didier Kryn <kryn@???> writes:
> Le 03/11/2015 17:24, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn <kryn@???> writes:
>>>

>>>      I agree with you, and it was the first point in my mail, that the
>>> servers should be able to cope with outages.
>> That's not a matter of "should": They have to. Even if it's believed
>> they're just using local IPC[*].

>

>     Yes, but let's consider that, maybe, some do not.

Well, yes, "sometimes, software has bugs".

[...]

> Let me explicite it:
>

>     - Encourage authors to make outage-aware servers, which can then
> be started in parallel;

Worrying about 'starting servers in parallell' only makes sense if
there's a real-world situation where this demonstrably makes a relevant
difference. And I very much doubt that --- that's just another imaginary
sugar-coating supposed to help selling systemd to people who are not
expected to understand the issue. As someone recently wrote,

    Point remains: most of the "less-tech-savy" users will probably
    not even know what systemd is, or what the fuss is all
    about. It's all been seamless, without hitch. The OS boots and
    gives them a GUI, done.

IOW, without the systemd marketing barrage, most people had never
noticed it as there are no user-visible difference, IOW, it's not an
improvement for them.

>     - Provide a supervisor able to handle dependencies for the
> non-outage-aware, with a trivial readyness notification method.

Can I have one which recites the Lord's prayer backwards prior to
starting a server if I'm more attracted to other superstitions?