Loginprompt shows up before booting is finished in Ubuntu Feisty server

[Anders Häggström]

2007/5/29, Soren Hansen <sh at linux2go.dk>:
> The only cause for confusion, as I see it, is that you expected
> /etc/initrc to be existant. When that was missing, you thought the whole
> world had been turned upside down. The fact remains that from the
> perspective of anyone who wants to change the order in which stuff
> starts, *nothing* has changed.
No, not really..
At first I misspelled /etc/initrc, it should be /etc/inittab, and I know that.
And I have nothing against "a new better model" (Upstart), if it is
fully implemted and working.

> It works. It's been tested. It's implemented.  We're just not making
> much use of it *yet*, but why should that matter?
That is just what I mean with "not fully implemented". By implement
something and not use it, it is not fully implemented.
If I am about to build a server form scrach (more or less) and will
edit a lot in /etc/init.d/ and /etc/rc?.d/ I have to learn SysV/init.
That fine, no big deal. But now I also have to learn how much of
Upstart is implemented. And I don't know what happens with my setup
when you deside to start using a litle more of Upstart. My setup might
crach totaly.
If Upstart would have been fully implemeted at one time, I only would
have to learn Upstart, and there would be less problems when
upgrading, as fiewer things would change.

> Why is it confusing that everything is the same as it used to be?
It's not. Some things are run the init-way and some things are run the
Upstart-way. And there probably is an ongoing transfer from init to
Upstart which will cause trouble if I don't use the standard (non
edited) scripts in /etc/init.d/

>
> > If Upstart was fully implemeted it would have been another situation.
>
> Quite the contrary. In that case, everything would be different from
> what you're used to.
Yes, and that is okay with me. If everything is different I just have
to stick to the new thing and learn that. No I have to learn Upstart,
and keep track of what is implemented and what is not.

> > Yes, because of Upstart.
>
> Huh?
Don't cut the sentence.. read the whole line.
To rewrite, if you really didn't understand what I meant:
If I cant change back to SysV I have to change distro. This is because
of Upstart just because I don't want it when it is half-implemented.
Now I know there is a way to change back to SysV, so this is no big
deal anymore.

2007/5/29, Nicola Larosa <nico at teknico.net>:
> > 2007/5/29, Nicola Larosa <nico at teknico.net>:
> >> Upstart isn't about boot time and it is just perfect for servers.
>
> Anders Häggström wrote:
> > Well, some say it is, you say it isn't. I don't like confusion.
>
> Ehm, I did not say that, check your attributions. :-)
Sorry, wrong person. Didn't your realise that? The one who wrote it
relised it at least.


2007/5/29, Ante Karamatić <ivoks at grad.hr>:
> Anders Häggström wrote:
>
> >> Upstart isn't about boot time and it is just perfect for servers.
>
> > Well, some say it is, you say it isn't. I don't like confusion.
>
> Internet is full of articles that say 'Upstart makes Ubuntu boot
> faster'. Those who write that didn't check the init system. If they did,
> they would find out the same thing we are saying to you - Ubuntu uses
> sysv. What makes Ubuntu boot faster is - dash.
Yes, that might be true.
Because Upstart is "implemented" but does only use the sysv-scripts
instead of its own model. I start to relize that now.

Thanks again. I think things are starting to get a litle brighter now. =)
And I've decided to stick to SysV until Upstart is fully implemented,
at least on at the servers where I am manipulating the booting
process.

// Anders