> Given the extraordinary scope of systemd, what happens with the next major issue? Having to perpetually work around poorly designed software is infuriating.
Systemd doesn’t break stuff if they just feel like it. Everything is compatible if it can be, for example you can still run /etc/init.d scripts and manage them through systemd on Debian. Lingering processes are also still supported! It’s a configuration switch that most distros decided to turn on by default, because...
> Why should the onus be on the end user? Perhaps the distributions should be making choices that are less antagonistic of their users (e.g. upstart instead of systemd).
... it’s a net benefit to most users. It’s only “antagonistic” to a particular subset of powerusers perfectly capable of working around the issue but somehow more motivated to loudly complain about it on Internet.
> You're right about the tradeoffs though, and one of the tradeoffs for buying into systemd is angry users.
Fair deal if it helps with even 0.1% desktop market share.
I see arguing but no consensus on what ought to be done.
My use case: I run a shell pipeline that will probably take all weekend to finish. On a POSIX box I start it with nohup. What do I do on a systemd box? Does nohup need a patch that doesn't exist yet?
There's a couple ways to work around the issue, you can just configure systemd to not kill processes that were in the user scope when the user scope is closed in which case it behaves exactly as it did before. Or if you want to keep systemd cleaning up hung applications but not e.g. some script that you typically ran with nohup you can just use systemd-run instead.
In particular you'd probably want --user so that it runs it under your user instance of systemd and --scope so that it's all run under a scope for that command instead of just a transient service. For most uses of nohup you could literally just make it an alias for systemd-run --user --scope instead.
I expect that the formal answer is that you should be running that within the service framework (be it systemd or other). My answer is: if you want POSIX-like behavior don't run it on Linux.
Systemd doesn’t break stuff if they just feel like it. Everything is compatible if it can be, for example you can still run /etc/init.d scripts and manage them through systemd on Debian. Lingering processes are also still supported! It’s a configuration switch that most distros decided to turn on by default, because...
> Why should the onus be on the end user? Perhaps the distributions should be making choices that are less antagonistic of their users (e.g. upstart instead of systemd).
... it’s a net benefit to most users. It’s only “antagonistic” to a particular subset of powerusers perfectly capable of working around the issue but somehow more motivated to loudly complain about it on Internet.
> You're right about the tradeoffs though, and one of the tradeoffs for buying into systemd is angry users.
Fair deal if it helps with even 0.1% desktop market share.