On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 11:30:06AM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > I use my computer for lots of automation like collecting weather and > Pepco powerline data, getting the book of the day, ebay sniping, etc. > They all run as either persistent processes or user cron jobs. I am > normally logged in, of course, but the current setup works even if I > go on vacation and/or the system reboots. I think it would be a > mistake to forbid it or even make it difficult to use. AFAICT cron/etc isn't affected by this proposal as its jobs are already launched as part of a service. > > Anyway, here's an actual idea: could systemd and GNOME arrange for > > terminal programs (things invoked in gnome-terminal, via ssh, etc) to > > persist and things that are graphical or dbus to not persist? For > > example, GNOME could stick everything into a scope that is killed when > > the GNOME session ends, gnome-terminal could split its children into a > > different scope, and ssh sessions could have a scope that always > > lingers (if permitted)? > > This looks promising, but it seems to introduce a mysterious, > hard-to-discover duality (some processes get killed and some don't). There > should be an easy way to a) specify, b) tell which one is is which, and to > discover post-factum why the process was killed. I doubt I'm alone in launching graphical desktop stuff from a terminal command prompt; stuff I absolutely want to get killed when I log out. The processes that one wants to linger are the exceptions here, not the norm -- and there's no blanket heuristic one can use to tell the difference. that said, if it's invoked via screen/tmux/nohup/etc that's a good indication.. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
