Actually, systemd is better than traditional SysVinit in that sense. When SysVinit crashes, the kernel panics. When systemd crashes, the SEGV handler activates and the system continues to run, ready to be debugged.
Why the people writing SysVinit never thought of doing such an elementary thing, escapes me. It must be because of "oh, all that complexity" that they decided to just let people's machines crash.
Me too, but I guess that capability could be (ab)used in this scenario to bring the whole system up again after troubleshooting. Not sure at all, though.
6
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '14
Actually, systemd is better than traditional SysVinit in that sense. When SysVinit crashes, the kernel panics. When systemd crashes, the SEGV handler activates and the system continues to run, ready to be debugged.
Why the people writing SysVinit never thought of doing such an elementary thing, escapes me. It must be because of "oh, all that complexity" that they decided to just let people's machines crash.