Re: Updating reboot's default
- Reply: Michael Gmelin : "Re: Updating reboot's default"
- In reply to: Michael Gmelin : "Re: Updating reboot's default"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:12:14 UTC
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:03 AM Michael Gmelin <email@example.com> wrote: > > > On 22. Jun 2022, at 04:03, Warner Losh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 6:35 PM Greg 'groggy' Lehey <email@example.com> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 8:01:58 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> > 15 or 20 years ago, we talked about changing the default for reboot from >> > 'right now' to being safe shutdown. There were arguments made against it >> > due to tiny appliances and such. >> > >> > Time has past, and this oddity has persisted. It's time to revisit that >> > decision. >> > >> > I'd propose that we keep 'fastboot' and 'fasthalt' having the immediate >> > behavior. However, the 'reboot' command will switch from '-q' behavior >> to >> > '-r' behavior. >> >> Somehow I hear this echo "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". My >> understanding has always been that shutdown(8) is the program that >> shuts down and maybe reboots the system, while reboot(8) is a quick >> and dirty way to reboot the system, along with halt(8) if you don't >> want to reboot. >> >> So why change this? At the very least you'll confuse people who want >> to use the old method. My guess is that you have some reason that's >> not immediately apparent, but what? >> > > Other systems have the behavior I'm advocating. We are the odd duck. This > means we tend to violate POLA here. And there is no good reason to do this > when fastboot is available. Nobody that advocated to keep this difference > as useful the last time it came up still wants to advocate. Most people > find the behavior annoying and only a vanishingly small minority of people > like it. In fact, so far nobody has even asked to please not, let alone > come up with a good reason to retain this behavior. So, I'm polling arch@ > to see if anyone like that shows up. > > > Well, to be honest, I’m used to the current behavior and would prefer to > keep it (POLA for existing users). I didn’t answer to advocate against the > change as > > 1. I have no metric to counter your argument that this is a real problem > for people used to other OSes (neither how many people pick up FreeBSD in > general nor how many are unpleasantly surprised by how `reboot` works) > 2. I will certainly be able to adapt and get used to the new behavior > 3. Given the amount of change in the world right now, it’s a “pick your > battles” situation. There is and will be so much to suck up, arguing about > this with someone who clearly put some thought into it seems like a waste > of everybody’s time. > I posted so I could understand other views, so I'd like to ask some questions if I may. Is your reliance on the current default due to shell and similar scripts you have? Or is it due to your interactive operations? What do you like about the current behavior: How quickly the reboot happens? Or you have a lot of running processes you don't want killed or to have a chance to clean up? What build process do you use to create your FreeBSD images? Images from the RE, buildworld, nanobsd, poudriere, etc... The only thought I've put into this is from my perspective, and while it is often a good reflection of the larger community, there are times there's a mismatch, so I'd like to at least understand why you hold these views. There may be a simple way to accommodate both sides. Warner > Cheers > Michael > > Warner > > > And no, I don't really have an axe to grind in this matter. >> >> Greg >> -- >> Sent from my desktop computer. >> See complete headers for address and phone numbers. >> This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program >> reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php >> >