Distributors ponder a systemd change
Distributors ponder a systemd change
Posted Jun 9, 2016 22:44 UTC (Thu) by jeff@uclinux.org (guest, #8024)In reply to: Distributors ponder a systemd change by JoeBuck
Parent article: Distributors ponder a systemd change
No, this breaks the expectations of the POSIX C runtime environment. If I write code to run on a supposedly compliant system by managing signals myself, I absolutely require that to work.
Someone with quite a bit of experience is noted for saying something like "UNIX doesn't have all the good ideas, just most of them". I rely on correct behaviour of signals, they were a good idea, and linking with some dumbass library to get behaviour I had before does not qualify as rational, let alone a good idea.
Fail.
Posted Jun 9, 2016 23:09 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Jun 16, 2016 16:12 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Well, as someone with quite a bit of non-Unix experience (and no, that's not just Microsoft), ime Unix/linux has quite of lot of stupid ideas too. And given Linus' attitude of "We're posix compliant if posix makes sense", he probably thinks the same.
Simple example - "cp a b". What's that going to do? Oh, and I don't want a long winded answer with a load of "if"s in it :-)
Whereas on Pr1mos, "copy a b" gives me an exact copy of a (security permissions permitting) called b.
And ime, most of these comments seem to be bikeshedding between two camps - the "sooner the better" camp, and the "the right time is never" camp. If it's going to happen, then now is as good a time as any. How long has this change been in the works? Since the dawn of systemd? And if all these programs - screen, tmux, nohup, haven't done anything about it yet, then they're not going to unless something gives them a kick up the bum.
Cheers,
Distributors ponder a systemd change
Distributors ponder a systemd change
Wol