Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday May 30 2016, @06:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the fed-up-with-the-UNIX-take-over dept.

The spreading of systemd continues, now actively pushed by themselves unto other projects, like tmux:

"With systemd 230 we switched to a default in which user processes started as part of a login session are terminated when the session exists (KillUserProcesses=yes).

[...] Unfortunately this means starting tmux in the usual way is not effective, because it will be killed upon logout."

It seems methods already in use (daemon, nohup) are not good for them, so handling of processes after logout has to change at their request and as how they say. They don't even engange into a discussion about the general issue, but just pop up with the "solution". And what's the "reason" all this started rolling? dbus & GNOME coders can't do a clean logout so it must be handled for them.

Just a "concidence" systemd came to the rescue and every other project like screen or wget will require changes too, or new shims like a nohup will need to be coded just in case you want to use with a non changed program. Users can probably burn all the now obsolete UNIX books. The systemd configuration becomes more like a fake option, as if you don't use it you run into the poorly programmed apps for the time being, and if they ever get fixed, the new policy has been forced into more targets.

Seen at lobsters 1 & 2 where some BSD people look pissed at best. Red Hat, please, just fork and do you own thing, leaving the rest of us in peace. Debian et al, wake up before RH signed RPMs become a hard dependency.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday May 30 2016, @09:02AM

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Monday May 30 2016, @09:02AM (#352571)

    I suspect this is a troll, so I will mostly respond with a stock answer:
    When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior [gnu.org]

    Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and conclude that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we should have to do either.

    Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on Why Open Source Misses the Point [gnu.org] when he explains, “The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.”
    ...
    By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and “distributed peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority of free development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a proprietary competitor.

    For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not, we need not treat it as a damning critique of free software advocacy or even as a compelling argument against the use of the software in question.

    That, and for mere peons, Microsoft is resorting to dirty tricks [soylentnews.org] in order to install Windows 10. Between that and telemetry, MIcrosoft is now openly hostile to their (non corporate) user-base. The average user is now replacing the QA department, which does not bode well for stability.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30 2016, @06:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30 2016, @06:11PM (#352698)

    Well if the Windows 7 marketshare _increases_ vs Windows 10, that might convince Microsoft they're heading in the wrong direction.

    You may laugh, but they did backpedal a bit after the Metro UI thing, and they did respond to the Vista complaints.

    Any signs of backpedalling for systemd?

    It seems every time Microsoft screws up (Vista, Metro etc) the Desktop Linux people sabotage their own stuff to make it even less attractive (pulseaudio, Unity, systemd etc). If you don't think Desktop Linux stuff was getting bad during those times, then explain why there was so much significant forking? e.g Linux Mint/Cinnamon, MATE etc.