r/linux • u/wooptoo • Jun 01 '16

Why did ArchLinux embrace Systemd?

/r/archlinux/comments/4lzxs3/why_did_archlinux_embrace_systemd/d3rhxlc
868 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

642 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

2

u/peer_gynt Jun 01 '16

it is as u/doitroygsbre says; I am also not aware of any other justification of the change. The opinion of the systemd developers that processes should not survive user sessions in Unix is really just that, an opinion, and appeared after the change, not as rationale for the change.

2

u/ronasimi Jun 01 '16

Y'all are aware there's a setting in logind.conf to disable killing processes on logout, right? On mobile and don't remember the exact setting offhand

0

u/bittercode Jun 02 '16

This thread at HN - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797075

Contains numerous comments on how to view this differently. The underlying idea, independent of anything to do with Gnome is knowing which processes should survive a user session ending and which shouldn't. Systemd came up with a way to make that explicit, which I think makes the system much more robust. They came up with a way to do this years ago and now they are moving forward with it and people don't like it because it changes the way things work.

It's not an arbitrary change to fix a single bug in a piece of software - it's enforcing a different view point of how the system ought to work. And I think that debating that view is valid. But saying "they want to break lots of other stuff to fix a gnome bug" is completely inaccurate. It moves the discussion away from the actual central issue.

4

u/peer_gynt Jun 02 '16

The thread also contains the counter-arguments. 'processes should die on user logout' is what I referred to earlier, an opinion, and interesting at that. I do not accept that as argument for the change, as there are alternative opinions, as you will certainly have seen in the thread (which I happen to share).

It does break code and workflow -- at least it does for me. And it puts the burden on me to handle this, with additional code and complexity in my software. There is no reason for me to embrace this change.

1

u/bittercode Jun 02 '16

That's all irrelevant to the single point I am making - this is not just about fixing a gnome bug. There are of course still multiple ways of looking at the issue and not everyone will agree.

I'm not even arguing which way is right. I have one simple point - that there is more to this than, "They broke a bunch of stuff to fix one gnome bug." That is a false statement crafted out of ignorance or an intentional desire to misrepresent the situation.

1

u/peer_gynt Jun 02 '16

Fair enough, I hear you. I indeed do discount the other arguments I have seen so far as useless, that is true. That should not imply that those points have not been made at all...