4 ms·
launchd doesn't break nohup. It doesn't have any opinions about processes started from shells. systemd does, which is completely inappropriate scope creep.
by erik_seaberg 7y ago
launchd doesn't break nohup. It doesn't have any opinions about processes started from shells. systemd does, which is completely inappropriate scope creep.
- Spivak 7y agoI agree with the systemd developers on this one. It's weird that processes started by users when their logged in by don't end when they log out unless they voluntarily terminate when sent a signal. And nohup was always a hack. Now that we actually have a functioning user-level service manager keeping processes alive by throwing them at PID 1 to parent needs to go away. I really hope that systemd eventually uses subreapers to keep all user processes under the session leader. I feel like it's weird to talk about scope creep when logind is pretty much the first system to define what a session even means on a Linux system.
- erik_seaberg 7y agoIf a process is interactive, it needs a way to be notified that its user is gone. That became a distributed system problem a while ago. PID 1 doesn't know whether an X client is active on a remote display, or a batch job is doing useful work.
- merb 7y agoyou know in a system with a gui where multiple users are working it's really really stupid to keep a process running?!