6 ms·

I'd like to respectfully disagree here. IMHO, killing user processes after logout is totally reasonable and something I would expect to happen on desktop comput

by embik 10y ago

I'd like to respectfully disagree here. IMHO, killing user processes after logout is totally reasonable and something I would expect to happen on desktop computers. On servers this might be a bit more difficult, but I like the idea of having to explicitly allow user processes to run outside of the session's scope. That keeps my server used by multiple people clean. I'd argue most sysadmins could simply deploy an alias to their servers for specific applications and be done with it. edit: If you're already using a specific command to tell the application to stay alive (e.g. nohup), you can use the "new" systemd command as well. nohup never related to a "session" scope because that didn't really exist before systemd. A new command _does_ break historical behaviour, but thanks god we do that from time to time. That's how innovation works.

sklogic 10y ago
> killing user processes after logout is totally reasonable How is it so? I cannot see a single legitimate justification for such a stupid behaviour. > "session" scope Exactly. There is no such a thing, and it should not exist, it's a totally alien concept to anything Unix.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Sure there is, that's why nohup had to be invented, because people wanted to leave some processes running after logout. (By the way, I disagree with this request to change tmux)
  - sklogic 10y ago
    > after logout Not after "logout", but after terminal is detached. For whatever reason. There is no such a thing as "logout".
    - icebraining 10y ago
      When I log off (by giving the logout command) the shell will print ‘logout’ and execute commands from the file ‘.logout’ if it exists in my home directory. After that the shell will terminate and UNIX will log me off the system. - Bill Joy, An Introduction to the C shell (1978) The concept is commonly called logout, even if you prefer to call it something else.
      - justinsaccount 10y ago
        That written in a world where you had one terminal on your desk or one modem to dial into the system. If you had two logged-in terminals on your desk and ran 'logout' on one of them, are you still logged in?
        digi_owl 10y ago
        And thus we are back at square one. Dbus devs apparently asked themselves the same, added the concept of a user session to dbus alongside the existing login session. Gnome code happens to get the two confused (or dbus fails to properly tell one form the other, likely by mixing old and new behavior). Systemd dev notices leftover Gnome processes, and convince Poettering to flip the safety on the big gun. All this while giving crap all about unix conventions...

by embik 10y ago

sklogic 10y ago

> killing user processes after logout is totally reasonable How is it so? I cannot see a single legitimate justification for such a stupid behaviour. > "session" scope Exactly. There is no such a thing, and it should not exist, it's a totally alien concept to anything Unix.

icebraining 10y ago
Sure there is, that's why nohup had to be invented, because people wanted to leave some processes running after logout. (By the way, I disagree with this request to change tmux)
- sklogic 10y ago
  > after logout Not after "logout", but after terminal is detached. For whatever reason. There is no such a thing as "logout".
  - icebraining 10y ago
    When I log off (by giving the logout command) the shell will print ‘logout’ and execute commands from the file ‘.logout’ if it exists in my home directory. After that the shell will terminate and UNIX will log me off the system. - Bill Joy, An Introduction to the C shell (1978) The concept is commonly called logout, even if you prefer to call it something else.
    - justinsaccount 10y ago
      That written in a world where you had one terminal on your desk or one modem to dial into the system. If you had two logged-in terminals on your desk and ran 'logout' on one of them, are you still logged in?
      - digi_owl 10y ago
        And thus we are back at square one. Dbus devs apparently asked themselves the same, added the concept of a user session to dbus alongside the existing login session. Gnome code happens to get the two confused (or dbus fails to properly tell one form the other, likely by mixing old and new behavior). Systemd dev notices leftover Gnome processes, and convince Poettering to flip the safety on the big gun. All this while giving crap all about unix conventions...