Its a ‘failsafe’ , like if part of the system depends on that drive mounting then if it fails then don’t continue. Not the expected default, but probably made sense at some point.
Like if brakes are broken don’t allow starting truck, type failsafe.
Yea like the default is smart? How is it supposed to know if that’s critical or not at that point? The alternative is for it to silently fail and wait for something else to break instead of failing gracefully? I feel like I’m growing more and more petty and matching the language of systemd haters but like just think about it for a few minutes???
Looking at the systems that are supported, it makes the greatest sense to have the safest failure mode as default. If fault tolerance is available, that can be handled in the entry but, it makes sense but to assume. Having that capability built into the default adds more complexity and reduces support for systems that are not tolerant of a missing mount.
Its a ‘failsafe’ , like if part of the system depends on that drive mounting then if it fails then don’t continue. Not the expected default, but probably made sense at some point. Like if brakes are broken don’t allow starting truck, type failsafe.
Yea like the default is smart? How is it supposed to know if that’s critical or not at that point? The alternative is for it to silently fail and wait for something else to break instead of failing gracefully? I feel like I’m growing more and more petty and matching the language of systemd haters but like just think about it for a few minutes???
Looking at the systems that are supported, it makes the greatest sense to have the safest failure mode as default. If fault tolerance is available, that can be handled in the entry but, it makes sense but to assume. Having that capability built into the default adds more complexity and reduces support for systems that are not tolerant of a missing mount.
Sorry if it looked otherwise, I was agreeing to BCsven. I agree with you