to be honest if that happens its better to understand why that happens, instead of just pulling the plug. maybe a larger program (like firefox) is still exiting and in the middle of saving the session and closing databases. if you pull the plug, it’ll corrupt its data, it’ll forget your opened tabs and whatnot and you’ll be angry
Great talk indeed. And I will quickly acknowledge that something had to be done, and that systemd had the courage to innovate and address the issues. I just wish it did so in a more transparent way to the end user.
For instance: there’s a whole established system of dealing with logs in place. Why build a separate one just for your init system? Why binary? Why even integrate it with your init? I’m not saying storing everything on /var/log and using logrotate is ideal or even covers all use cases. But a log management system is its own thing.
That’s just an example of how systemd didn’t jive with every other subsystem in a Unix like OS. It could have been done in a Unix way - small cohesive tools that are good at one job and can be combined to do more together.
That’s where I think he missed the mark when dismissing the monolithic criticism by saying “it’s not a single binary so it’s not monolithic”. Its philosophy is monolithic.
That said, I use systemd on my machines because that’s what my do uses and I don’t think it’s a reason to swap distros. For the same reason I use Linux and not a micro kernel. I.e. philosophy is important, but implementation is importanter.
While monolithic may not be the keep is simple rule aimed for in originally in Unix/Linux, I wonder if it even matters…is there something really gained by init systems that make a difference for the average Linux user?
systemd moment in the sense that someone not affiliated with systemd used systemd to write a stop job that doesn’t terminate quickly? Or that you willingly installed software that brought along a slow stop job with it?
This is like so far away from systemd’s fault, idk, it must just be a meme right?
Pretty sure i’ve had this happen with services i didn’t even create, but yeah it was just a joke, i don’t care about init systems, but i don’t recall this ever happening when i was using runit.
I don’t know runit. Maybe runit didn’t even have a way to delay or customize shutdown, maybe it always just waits 5 seconds and then forcibly terminates a process, resulting in you never noticing when a cleanup job was too slow. Maybe you just randomly never installed a particular program with a slow shutdown job while using runit. There’s a bunch of reasonable explanations and possibilities for why this difference exists, and they can all mean systemd is perfectly reasonable.
Did you delete it or comment it out in /etc/fstab? Adding
noresume
to your boot arguments should also help. You can try that out in “extended options” during boot and add it to /boot/grub/grub.cfg later. Don’t forget to run
Yeah I just deleted the swap partition without updating anything. I’ve realized since then I need to update the fstab but I never think about it until the odd time I do a full reboot.
As comments below you will need to check /etc/fstab and then run a mkgrub or mkgrub2 command with options like -o (you will have lookup the full string) and it will rewrite the info that the system is told at boot about drive partitions
disconnects power cord
I hate this message
Wasn’t the systemd dude a Microsoft employee or something?
to be honest if that happens its better to understand why that happens, instead of just pulling the plug. maybe a larger program (like firefox) is still exiting and in the middle of saving the session and closing databases. if you pull the plug, it’ll corrupt its data, it’ll forget your opened tabs and whatnot and you’ll be angry
He wrote Pulseaudio, Avahi, and systemd before joining Microsoft, where he currently works.
So that’s the story. SystemD feels very Microsofty, though. A big, opinionated, monolith.
An excellent vid on Why systemD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo
Great talk indeed. And I will quickly acknowledge that something had to be done, and that systemd had the courage to innovate and address the issues. I just wish it did so in a more transparent way to the end user.
For instance: there’s a whole established system of dealing with logs in place. Why build a separate one just for your init system? Why binary? Why even integrate it with your init? I’m not saying storing everything on /var/log and using logrotate is ideal or even covers all use cases. But a log management system is its own thing.
That’s just an example of how systemd didn’t jive with every other subsystem in a Unix like OS. It could have been done in a Unix way - small cohesive tools that are good at one job and can be combined to do more together.
That’s where I think he missed the mark when dismissing the monolithic criticism by saying “it’s not a single binary so it’s not monolithic”. Its philosophy is monolithic.
That said, I use systemd on my machines because that’s what my do uses and I don’t think it’s a reason to swap distros. For the same reason I use Linux and not a micro kernel. I.e. philosophy is important, but implementation is importanter.
Yes. This is the key
While monolithic may not be the keep is simple rule aimed for in originally in Unix/Linux, I wonder if it even matters…is there something really gained by init systems that make a difference for the average Linux user?
One task lifecycle management tool to bring them all, one tool to find them. One tool to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
Systemd moment
systemd moment in the sense that someone not affiliated with systemd used systemd to write a stop job that doesn’t terminate quickly? Or that you willingly installed software that brought along a slow stop job with it?
This is like so far away from systemd’s fault, idk, it must just be a meme right?
Pretty sure i’ve had this happen with services i didn’t even create, but yeah it was just a joke, i don’t care about init systems, but i don’t recall this ever happening when i was using runit.
I don’t know runit. Maybe runit didn’t even have a way to delay or customize shutdown, maybe it always just waits 5 seconds and then forcibly terminates a process, resulting in you never noticing when a cleanup job was too slow. Maybe you just randomly never installed a particular program with a slow shutdown job while using runit. There’s a bunch of reasonable explanations and possibilities for why this difference exists, and they can all mean systemd is perfectly reasonable.
Alright man, fact remains i was just making a silly joke, you don’t have to be poettering’s pr team lol
You’re the one who brought up runit and insinuated it doesn’t have this problem ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I said i never experienced this problem with runit, not that it can’t happen. It was anecdotal.
Not only do I get this on shutdown I get a job on startup that runs for a minute thirty that looks for a swap partition that I have deleted.
Did you delete it or comment it out in /etc/fstab? Adding
to your boot arguments should also help. You can try that out in “extended options” during boot and add it to /boot/grub/grub.cfg later. Don’t forget to run
Yeah I just deleted the swap partition without updating anything. I’ve realized since then I need to update the fstab but I never think about it until the odd time I do a full reboot.
As comments below you will need to check /etc/fstab and then run a mkgrub or mkgrub2 command with options like -o (you will have lookup the full string) and it will rewrite the info that the system is told at boot about drive partitions
I’ve had that problem before, I think I had to mess around with my fstab and grub config to fix it.
Yes. Deleting partitions without editing /etc/fstab is a nice way to render your system unbootable.
Only if they are necessary for the boot process I think
Praise all the syatemd gods
Dahm been quite a bit since I’ve seen this one. Wonder what changed on my system?
When I forget to close explicitly Steam before shutdown