I now have my box running as it should be, with very few problems.
The only Linux one is the screen with the 3 question marks. Looking
at the journal, there are repeated occurrences of
A start job for unit UNIT has begun execution.
folowed by
A start job for unit UNIT has finished successfully.
but there is no unit called "UNIT" that I am aware of. There is no
hint of an error at that point, but the constant repetition of that
cycle seems unusual. As it stands, it is too vague to be of any use.
Is it a shorthand that systemd uses, rather than looking up the name
of each unit in turn?
I now have my box running as it should be, with very few problems. The
only Linux one is the screen with the 3 question marks. Looking at the journal, there are repeated occurrences of
A start job for unit UNIT has begun execution.
folowed by
A start job for unit UNIT has finished successfully.
but there is no unit called "UNIT" that I am aware of. There is no hint
of an error at that point, but the constant repetition of that cycle
seems unusual. As it stands, it is too vague to be of any use. Is it a shorthand that systemd uses, rather than looking up the name of each
unit in turn?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 482 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 43:00:29 |
Calls: | 9,566 |
Files: | 13,656 |
Messages: | 6,141,946 |