Hi,

So, GNOME users will be hand-held to have their background processes
terminated automatically. And, those who want to bypass this
functionality need to tweak their system to allow some background
processes persist. Huh, this mysterious tweaking looks like the right
recipe.... System administrators using systemd will need to know the
new methods... No problem... there is paid support... and private
system(d) administration courses!

Systemd is reminding me when Microsoft used to drastically change
their office products to the extent that users needed retraining...
which is outrageous and disgusting.

Now I can understand some of the logic why grey beards like us didn't
succumb to systemd! They could already administer their machines the
way they wanted and were used to stable machine performance. Switching
to something extremely complicated, new and potentially
under-debugged was one reason why they opted out of systemd. Another
reason may have been their employers didn't want to spend money to
gain essentially nothing or worse end up with unstable machines.

Edward

On 08/06/2016, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@???> wrote:
> Didier Kryn <kryn@???> writes:
>> Le 08/06/2016 12:49, KatolaZ a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>

>>     I looked for documentation on cgroups-v2, which is a complete
>> rewrite of cgroups and is the one available in recent kernels.

>
>> I wasn't able to find a howto. But one of the documents I found
>> (https://www.linux.com/blog/all-about-linux-kernel-cgroups-redesign)
>> is full of references to systemd to the point it is literally
>> disgusting.
>>

>>     I cite:
>> "Systemd and cgroup developers are working together to turn systemd
>> into a global cgroup manager that creates higher-level control knobs
>> and prevents direct access to the kernel.

>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
>
> While I remember the stated goal of "turning cgroups into a private
> property of systemd" including "then, we'll have to break userspace"
> (the maintainer wrote) from about the time when the link you're quoting
> was current, this doesn't seem to have happened. I suspected the
> original announcement to be "intentionally inflammatory" in this respect
> already.
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>