Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Rainer Weikusat Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer Subject: Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 20:54:11 +0000 Lines: 41 Message-ID: <87ldwehvyk.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> References: <20241213074207.00004176@gmail.com> <20241216075519.00002023@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net BTzcAdGDpARZPmKceH869QzSdZjH0MXCDqIBahGFFWV1WJOpo= Cancel-Lock: sha1:jIz9YauTbdZuPswjJKubndYY3xo= sha1:EO/ajix07duicVibYsKKNomeItA= sha256:coCCp+ptqjSWShOvdK5giQzS1sB4LVew854Ea2eB1yY= User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Xref: csiph.com comp.unix.programmer:16772 Richard Kettlewell writes: > Jim Jackson writes: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:55:19 -0800, John Ames wrote: >>>> The fact that people are free to make stupid choices does not mean >>>> that other people aren't allowed to call out stupidity where they >>>> see it. >>> >>> Notice that all the complaints seem to go in one direction, not the >>> other? We only see systemd-haters complaining about those using it, >>> you don???t see systemd users complaining about those who don???t? >> >> No. But I think some of us get a bit pissed at some people making out >> that previous inits were (almost) unworkable - which is palpably false. > > ‘Unworkable’ may be an exaggeration, but the practical issues and > functionality gaps were real; even if you didn’t personally experience > them, other people did. I think there were at least ten different > attempts to come up with something better in the free software world > alone. Meanwhile the commercial Unixes largely got their act together > long before Linux did. Practical issue and functionality gaps and generally, a load of useless mess, were real in the rc systems mainstream Linux distributions had conventionally layered atop of sysvinit. These could have been addressed in a variety of ways but basically, nobody _working for RedHat_ ever tried until systemd. Then, RedHat drove the pretty much universal switch to it, just as it had already driven the switch to sysvinit and to glibc 2 (known as libc6 in Linuxland) before. > Whether systemd was the best possible design, or just the best option > available, or possibly neither of both. It was the RedHat option available and that's what caused its universal adoption (combined with an extremely aggressive and extremely unpleasant propaganda campaign by systemd fanbois --- but without RedHat, these wouldn't have accomplished anything). BTW, on of the first things I learnt about systemd after I had to support it was that it still uses pid files.