On 06/08/2016 07:49 PM, KatolaZ wrote:
> [sorry for the long reply]

Very well put.

>
> Killing all the processes at logout should be easily doable using
> cgroups (which existed much before Poettering got his bachelor
> degree), and is indeed easily doable with screen, nohup, and hundred
> of similar amenities. Those *mechanisms* exist already, and new ones
> can and should be introduced as needed, to complement the existing
> ones, so that they can be combined in thousands of different new ways,
> to serve the needs of different and emerging use cases. But it is not
> possible to enforce the policy "all the processes that want to survive
> have to use a precise mechanism", which in the meanwhile breaks
> backward compatibility with other mechanisms and other policies. This
> is not innovation. This is just breaking things for the sake of it.
>

IMHO, systemd should probably be called gnomed and then employ all the
well known, well documented APIs of the system(s if it is to be useful
on other OS that Gnome might run on) to do it's thing.

By not employing those existing mechanisms, the authors of systemd are
guilty of moving Linux systems farther away from POSIX and Unix then
they already are. Linux might not be a true Unix for a few reasons, but
those reasons have been deliberated over and there is no need to be in a
hurry to break things. If it were not for projects like Devuan, Linux
may really become something a Unix user cannot use comfortably and/or
fluently. I should not have to learn to drive again just because the
engine of a car has become more efficient. To the business man, it might
make sense to put forth this excuse, because he gets to rip you off, but
to the rest of us it is what is called sh177y engineering.