3 ms·
Speaking of technical debt, I'm not sure if "nohup as a process management scheme" is a good one. Similar to "screen/tmux as a daemon manager". (I'm not saying
by mgbmtl 10y ago
Speaking of technical debt, I'm not sure if "nohup as a process management scheme" is a good one. Similar to "screen/tmux as a daemon manager".
(I'm not saying tmux is bad, I use it all the time. I just don't use it as a daemon manager -- If I understand correctly, they do provide a way to fix screen/tmux.)
Systemd generally tries to standardize how to declare common things about a process:
- should it be automatically restarted if it does? at what interval?
- where are its logs?
- how to tell if the process is alive or not?
- can we isolate the process? (tmp files)
- and now: should this process continue to run even if the user has logged out?
And yep, I'm an old schooler who just got tired of dealing with duct tape solutions.
- dkuntz2 10y agoYou don't have to use tmux as a daemon manager to find this change annoying. The way we do development where I work is by having two people ssh into a server, and open a joint tmux session. These sessions generally last a week or more, and you generally log out of ssh daily. Or even if you're not pairing, just being disconnected over lunch is a long enough time for SSH to disconnect. Finding ways to overcome that (besides changing the systemd config) are even more duck tape fixes. Automatically terminating processes when a user logs out is a bad default. Sure, leave it as an option because there might be some people that would find it useful, but changing the default without a good reason is bad policy.
- mgbmtl 10y agoAs I said, I'm a huge fan of tmux. I would be concerned if they broke tmux, but it does not seem to be the case. I've seen people run "nohup [program]" and logout, not even run it in a tmux. If systemd killed their program, I would be quite happy about it.