systemd for 11.10 ?
steve.langasek at ubuntu.com
Wed May 11 09:57:06 UTC 2011
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 08:56:11PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 08:10 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> > Is it really necessary to kill all children of gdm when gdm itself gets stopped?
> > I might have started some backgrounded script somewhere that should really
> > continue running after gdm gets killed. I would see it as a major regression if
> > these things get killed along with gdm.
> If you want to drop to single user mode. When you are going to be doing
> things like back up the system it is essential that everything be shut
> down so you can remount the root fs read-only for instance.
We had a working single user mode for 20 years before cgroups came along.
Why is there now a dependency on a cutting-edge, Linux-specific feature?
The only thing that I see cgroups give you that you don't already have from
killall5 is the assurance that processes won't dodge attempts to kill them.
That's an interesting feature of cgroups to think about, but I don't think
it's relevant to single user mode in the real world.
> > Case in point, I have gnome-terminal set up to run byobu-launcher which
> > sets up a screen session, and the session continues on between gdm
> > sessions, allowing me to reconnect to it after re-logging in, either on
> > gdm again, a tty or via SSH.
> That screen session should be run by init as a parallel service to gdm
> so it can be started or stopped when appropriate, with or without gdm.
That is a stark departure from existing Unix convention, and not something
that we should jump on board without due diligence.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ubuntu-devel