Systemd sends SIGKILL imediately after SIGTERM during shutdown (bugzilla.redhat.com) 2 points by lawl 11y ago ↗ HN
[–] lawl 11y ago ↗ Seems like this is the commit causing this: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=74397Why not just sleep for a fixed amount of time? [–] digi_owl 11y ago ↗ Because sleep is arbitrary, ugly, and slow?At least that is one of the arguments i have seen bandied about for going systemd in the first place, a reduction in the amount of sleeps they had to put into the bootup scripts. [–] lawl 11y ago ↗ Because kill -9'ing half the system is better? [–] digi_owl 11y ago ↗ Not defending them, as i find the whole systemd concept a massive train wreck. Just speculating what their justification is likely to be.
[–] digi_owl 11y ago ↗ Because sleep is arbitrary, ugly, and slow?At least that is one of the arguments i have seen bandied about for going systemd in the first place, a reduction in the amount of sleeps they had to put into the bootup scripts. [–] lawl 11y ago ↗ Because kill -9'ing half the system is better? [–] digi_owl 11y ago ↗ Not defending them, as i find the whole systemd concept a massive train wreck. Just speculating what their justification is likely to be.
[–] lawl 11y ago ↗ Because kill -9'ing half the system is better? [–] digi_owl 11y ago ↗ Not defending them, as i find the whole systemd concept a massive train wreck. Just speculating what their justification is likely to be.
[–] digi_owl 11y ago ↗ Not defending them, as i find the whole systemd concept a massive train wreck. Just speculating what their justification is likely to be.
4 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 20.8 ms ] threadWhy not just sleep for a fixed amount of time?
At least that is one of the arguments i have seen bandied about for going systemd in the first place, a reduction in the amount of sleeps they had to put into the bootup scripts.