5 ms·
Right; the Linux kernel has a "we don't break userland" policy, systemd doesn't. That's a selling point for the Linux kernel, and a strike against systemd. Both
by jimrandomh 8y ago
Right; the Linux kernel has a "we don't break userland" policy, systemd doesn't. That's a selling point for the Linux kernel, and a strike against systemd. Both systemd and the Linux kernel are infrastructure projects which, if they're doing their jobs well, will never cause me problems so I get to ignore them. Systemd has been causing other people problems, and doesn't seem to understand that in the role they're trying to fill, preventing that from happening is their first and most important responsibility.
- majewsky 8y agoLike it or not, the Linux kernel is clearly the outlier in terms of backwards compatibility. For example, Postgres changes their data format in most non-bugfix releases. Would you consider that "a strike against" Postgres?
- dooglius 8y agoThey provide an upgrade process that makes this invisible to the end user, so it's not a fair comparison. If it started deleting tables when I exit a session, that would definitely be a strike against it.
- m45t3r 8y agoSystemd offer a compile and runtime option to turn this option off, so it is a fair comparison.
- SahAssar 8y agoPostgres has session-bound resources, and in most cases no way to disable those from being deleted when exiting a session. For example in postgres you can't persist a prepared statement, but you can of course persist data within a table. Any function running will be killed when you exit (or at least not complete since the transaction is cancelled). IMO when a user has logged out and has not had the permissions/foresight to setup a task in the system to run without a session it should be killed. I get that this has not been the default behavior in linux/UNIX, but to me it seems like the sensible one. And that's before we ever argue about the possibility to turn it off.