3 ms·
Killing user processes which aren't meant to stay alive after the user logs out is sensible. Killing all user processes unless they update their code to impleme
by danudey 10y ago
Killing user processes which aren't meant to stay alive after the user logs out is sensible. Killing all user processes unless they update their code to implement a new API just for this one platform, because of a breaking change to a 21-year-old API, is not sensible.
In other words, if this functionality had been added 21 years ago as well, a lot of mess and confusion would have been avoided and we'd all be happier, but since it didn't the systemd guys are trying to implement it retroactively, which is going to break a lot more stuff than tmux/screen/etc.
- tremon 10y agoKilling user processes which aren't meant to stay alive after the user logs out is sensible Only if you can succesfully determine which ones the user wants to keep running. Otherwise it's just breaking stuff, as this story shows. if this functionality had been added 21 years ago as well, a lot of mess and confusion would have been avoided Not really. You will always have sub-standard software that doesn't adhere to the system's declared semantics, and just goes by "what works" (ask the WineHQ guys). Any API that has been around for 21 years will have corner cases where software just breaks. That does not mean you're then free to break the old API yourself.