Re: Faking a TTY on a pipe/socketpair

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> 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.