Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the logind.conf man page [1]: > KillUserProcesses= > Takes a boolean argument. Configures whether the processes of a user should be killed when the user logs out. If true, the scope unit corresponding to the session and all processes inside that scope will be terminated. If false, the scope is "abandoned", see systemd.scope(5), and processes are not killed. Defaults to "no", but see the options KillOnlyUsers= an…
Ahhh, thanks. Now you mention it, wasn’t there some major scandal about this when it first shipped?
Systemd 252
201–210 of 317 posts
Re: Systemd 252
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nohup is a disgusting hack from a previous century. I don’t see how having less information on what is happening to a process good — nohup interprets supposedly meaningful signals never meant for this misuse differently. If you want to continue to run a process you have to start a service which is exactly that.
No, I don't have to do that at all, I can in fact use the standard unix way of making a process not terminate on SIGHUP by telling it to ignore SIGHUP. SIGHUP is not a signal to shut down, it's a signal that says the controlling terminal is gone. The action taken by the process at that point is the decision of the process and the user that launched it, not the init system. This is exactly what it is for. Changing tha…
Why do you assume they didn't know about this quite basic mechanism? They added 2 configuration options, one at compile time (to set the default) and another configurable by the user. In fact, distro maintainers didn't look up what it did and they just compiled it as is, resulting in the surprising behavior of killing lingering processes.
Also, it is an init and service management system and long-running processes are services. If you want to run something for "reliability" you should create a service for it, or just run the command with "systemd-run", to properly communicate with the responsible process manager what it supposed to do when the user logs out (and to actually make it reliable, e.g. you can then set it to auto-restart on failure, etc) Safely killing lingering processes and cleaning up after them is the correct default behavior, so systemd just tries to enforce that - they actually communicated with nohup maintainers to optionally add this systemd communication, so that "nohup whatever" would still work, but they were not open to it.
Re: Systemd 252
#203I just never get why people always flame on systemd. Sure, it's kinda bloated in the sense that it is "battery included" just like Python, but the intention to have a stable init with great system and service management is very good from both a DevOps and Sysadmin perspective. It is at least much better than writing your adhoc init.d script that may not guarantee to run on other Linux distros.
Systemd ruined Debian for me, for example.
I'd been using Debian testing for years and years, on multiple systems. Despite its name, I'd always found Debian testing to be more reliable than the stable releases of other major distros.
When performing updates and upgrades during those many years of using Debian testing, I had only ever experienced trivial issues that I could easily resolve, usually just on my own with a few minutes of investigation.
Then systemd was forced onto Debian's users.
As soon as it ended up on one of my systems, the problems started. That very first update left my computer unable to boot. That was the first time in over a decade of using Debian that that'd happened. I also remember it taking far too long to diagnose and resolve whatever that initial problem was.
Subsequent updates involving systemd just caused me more and more problems. They usually weren't minor issues, either. They'd significantly impact the usability of my installation.
To make matters worse, I, as a user, didn't see systemd even bringing me any benefits.
Eventually, I lost my ability to trust in Debian and its reliability, even for Debian stable once systemd eventually made it there.
Now I completely avoid Debian and other systemd-using Linux distros whenever I can.
Re: Systemd 252
#204I just never get why people always flame on systemd. Sure, it's kinda bloated in the sense that it is "battery included" just like Python, but the intention to have a stable init with great system and service management is very good from both a DevOps and Sysadmin perspective. It is at least much better than writing your adhoc init.d script that may not guarantee to run on other Linux distros.
I myself don't have a problem with the monolithic thing that replaced sysv init scripts. While the definition of sysv init scripts was attractively simple, the resulting implementation was not. Wading through many lines of boilerplate shell that's mostly accidental complexity is not my idea of a good time.
But I do hate how systemd splays its config and dependency graph throughout hundreds of tiny files and symlinks in multiple directories (and .ini files at that!), and then insists that this is no problem because you can "just" learn some bespoke commands to analyze them for you. With my sysadmin hat on, I'd much rather have a unit be a single file in a single well known directory, that specifies only the service properties and no dependency information. And then have the dependencies orchestrated by a single logical top-level file that pulls those units in and defines what depends on what. In general if I'm going to customize a distribution-supplied config file, I'd much rather overwrite the distribution file and completely own it going forward, rather than having the distro file and my file merged with some arbitrary rules.
Having said that, I've moved many of my machines to NixOS where systemd is just another thing to be mitigated and nixified. The expected on-disk format doesn't matter, because it's all generated from a single logical config file and then splayed out however systemd wants. The nix config looks a bit verbose and wonky, but at least it's contained. But it also feels like it would be quite easy to switch out down the line...
Re: Systemd 252
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have used all the alternatives, and written my own init systems from 0. Systemd is really well designed and makes Linux workstation use predictable and more secure across distros in numerous ways. You can have any service you want now, even xorg/ wayland, as an unprivileged user. It basically removes all need to use root if used correctly. Systemd however is however not designed for server use, but neither is OpenR…
I mean it's pretty hard to debate the merits of systemd as a server init system when you think we should all be using come kind of containerization system :p
Re: Systemd 252
#206I just never get why people always flame on systemd. Sure, it's kinda bloated in the sense that it is "battery included" just like Python, but the intention to have a stable init with great system and service management is very good from both a DevOps and Sysadmin perspective. It is at least much better than writing your adhoc init.d script that may not guarantee to run on other Linux distros.
Systemd is a somewhat successful non-unix operating system, marketed to people who want a unix-like operating system using force. This isn't what anyone wants but you'll go along or they'll unleash a hell of sophistry about how this is "really" what everyone wants even if its the opposite, made up stories about the opponents, or only bad people don't want what we want and you don't want to be tagged as one of the bad…
Linux+GNU is either a Unix operating system or it is not. Having systemd on board changes exactly nothing, since there never was a system services interface anyway. Files in a directory you say? That's not an interface, it's a recipe for failure. Or why do you think that every distribution used to ship their own init scripts?
You EV car dealership is awfully flawed, especially with Linux+GNU you can even build you own car. So why are you complaining? Nobody is forcing you to use a distro with systemd. Nobody can force you. You're not a victim, you're privileged.
systemd is for the first time providing Linux+GNU with a sane system services management and finally gets it ahead of OSX or windows in terms of capability. Instead of unconstrained bash scripts (that require ridiculous template magic or fail for the first edge case) you need only a ten line service description that does things that an init script would not been able to deliver. Like the most basic thing ever; reliable restart. The amount of hacks that were necessary to get an init script to only semi-reliably restart are atrocious - and deamontools are just the beginning.
I've come to understand that the dislike of systemd has less to do with the technology at hand but more with human nature.
Re: Systemd 252
#207It feels like the time is ripe for something simpler and more modern to replace* systemd. The timing of this release coincides with me being bitten with yet another bug** on the weekend. How long until “Systemd: The Good Parts”? *The most trivial new name would be système which would at least be in keeping with the French naming. **In Debian stable if you create a new user, ssh in as that user, logout, then delete th…
> It feels like the time is ripe for something simpler and more modern to replace* systemd. Well then do what Poettering did and write it. It's threads like this why I am eternally grateful that Linux kernel uses a merit driven approach and not concessus driven one.
You end up needing to fork all the projects that Redhat has gotten their tentacles around.
Re: Systemd 252
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But let’s add the advantages of this logging: systemd can log events from the very start of the boot process, which was not possible before. From what I've seen using Alpine Linux for a few weeks on my Raspberry Pi, logs are written to /var/log/messages after the init process starts and launches the logging service. All logs before the init starts can be retrieved using dmesg? I'm not sure about this though, let me…
>One of the things I haven't figured out yet is if traditional logging systems can easily do advanced log filtering like showing only logs from the current boot (like -b in systemd), previous boots (-b -1), and showing logs after a specific date and time (--since). I manage this with clever usage of grep. You are correct in that there isn't a single --flag that will only show me those specifics.
I can grep my way through text logs as well but being able to get logs for different purposes using --flags is better user experience. I can always resort to to using grep, sed, and awk if I want to when using journald but the loss of these quality of life features make it hard for me to consider using a distro that does not have systemd.
Re: Systemd 252
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue the success of the Steam Deck is evidence of the Linux desktop's maturity. The normal game UI is just another Wayland session, and it's a fully functional PC running Arch Linux. KDE is installed and easily accessible.
I'd say the success of the Steam Deck is a testament to the maturity of the Windows API[0]. Old enough and reliable enough that it is a better target for games on Linux than Linux Desktop's own shit show. [0] and of course the efforts of the WINE project and proton.
Re: Systemd 252
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
own the TCP port for zero downtime deployments of the It's not zero downtime, if the app isn't reaponding. And any infra that cares about uptime, has redundant instances. This feature is, IMO, a feel good feature.
It's zero downtime in that at no point does the kernel not respond to a TCP SYN packet and all those connections eventually get seen by the daemon. (Really useful for updating local services on Unix sockets.) It's also much simpler than redundant instances, and applications are updated much more commonly than hardware failures so it's a cheap way to increase availability in practice. And if your app can restart in a…
So maybe you think I have issues in general.