SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday May 31 2016, @06:24PM
So where is this hard proof that systemd is better. I have looked it over and found it to be a bad idea. It COULD have been implemented in a way that respected the existing APIs and did not introduce crazy dependencies. But that would mean giving up coercive takeover. Apparently, playing nice with others got the heave ho early on.
You hate scripts? Look under the rug and you'll find hundreds of 'no really, it's not a script' files for systemd. To top it off, they use the logical equivalent of the 'comefrom' control structure. Yes, comefrom was a CS joke, but systemd uses it for real.
It seems to me you took systemd on faith and now insist on hard evidence to bend from that position. You've blinded yourself.
What does systemd ACTUALLY do that hasn't already been done quietly and cooperatively?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 01 2016, @01:55PM
To be fair, try-catches are basically comefroms.
Of course, if somebody relied on try-catches for large portions of their control flow it would probably give me pause, too.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday June 01 2016, @05:21PM
Actually, try-catch is more of a conditional goto explicitly declared over a block of code. Comefrom is an unconditional jump in the global scope that is declared nowhere near where the jump will happen.
Try-catch can be used well or poorly (too often poorly). There is no good case for comefrom. A classic example in BASIC: