Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 9, 2016 14:43 UTC (Thu) by ksandstr (guest, #60862)
In reply to: Distributors ponder a systemd change by flussence
Parent article: Distributors ponder a systemd change

The big question is: if this is indeed required by GNOME, KDE, etc. for their ill-behaved spawn, why is it not those desktop environments that set a flag in systemd to have their descendants killed? Why is it the case that screen, tmux, et al. must depend on systemd to avoid that fate?

Per Hanlon's razor, either systemd is again breaking well-working, well-defined userspace (i.e. screen, tmux, nohup'd processes, etc.) just for the dependency-tree influence it yields, or they simply don't know any better than to do a stupid thing and then imperiously double down on it.

to post comments

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 9, 2016 15:18 UTC (Thu) by johannbg (guest, #65743) [Link] (1 responses)

"well-defined userspace"

Well defined by who?

It's always so that the programs that misbehaving are the ones that need fixing so establish first whether those programs you listed have been technically correctly implemented or are technically misbehaving.

Peoples "feelings", "history", "workflows", "religion" and what not are entirely irrelevant in these types of matter.

So answer this is systemd technically doing the correct thing.

If the answer is yes it's doing the technical right thing then what breaks should be fixed elsewhere.
if the answer is no it's not doing the technical correct thing then what breaks should be fixed in systemd.

It's as simple as that.

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 9, 2016 17:00 UTC (Thu) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link]

> Well defined by who?

By practice across multiple independent implementations of Unix. Call it a silent standard.