4 ms·
It's the invasiveness or the approach. To use the (wrong) car analogy, the blinker manufacturer shouldn't demand a specific engine oil being used. Amalgamation
by quickben 10y ago
It's the invasiveness or the approach. To use the (wrong) car analogy, the blinker manufacturer shouldn't demand a specific engine oil being used. Amalgamation of components, in the software world, carries long term risk and problems.
- JBReefer 10y agoThis is the OS level, though - despite the difference in orgs, it's like complaining that Windows is moving away from WCF . Normal coupling rules do not apply.
- tremon 10y agoWhat is "OS level" though? This breaks user applications, which is three stories above "OS level" IMHO.
- justinsaccount 10y agoTo me, the car analogy would be: For years people have been locking their keys in their car and then having a locksmith open the door when they get back. Now, someone is trying to improve the locks so that a locksmith cant open the door and people are complaining that it ruins a perfectly good arrangement. In this analogy, 'locking the keys in the car' is 'logging out' and the locksmith is 'nohup'. systemd isn't really out to break nohup, they are trying to fix the logging out process. Sure, nohup has worked for decades, but 'logout' has never worked right. The problem is that 'nohup' is designed to 'run a command immune to hangups' not 'run a command even after I logout' and there has never been a distinction between an individual connection 'hangup' and a full user 'logout'. With systemd, there is, and programs don't handle the distinction. If you don't think there should be a distinction KillUserProcesses can be turned off.