From nobody Wed Jun 22 07:03:35 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D79873A31 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:03:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from grembo@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.evolve.de (mail.evolve.de [213.239.217.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA512 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.evolve.de", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LSZ9Y1BClz3s0T; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:03:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from grembo@freebsd.org) Received: by mail.evolve.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 12762c28; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.evolve.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id d5ead254 (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6986E708-BC30-405F-A67C-32925770B633 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arch List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: Updating reboot's default From: Michael Gmelin In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:03:35 +0200 Cc: Greg 'groggy' Lehey , Warner Losh , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Message-Id: <546C53F4-E30F-4DAF-BE33-B1772A23ABAE@freebsd.org> References: To: Warner Losh X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19E258) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4LSZ9Y1BClz3s0T X-Spamd-Bar: + Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 213.239.217.29 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of grembo@freebsd.org) smtp.mailfrom=grembo@freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.50 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[grembo]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.87)[-0.867]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all:c]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.97)[0.967]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(1.00)[1.000]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arch]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:213.239.192.0/18, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N --Apple-Mail-6986E708-BC30-405F-A67C-32925770B633 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On 22. Jun 2022, at 04:03, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF >=20 >=20 >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 6:35 PM Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrot= e: >> 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 fro= m >> > 'right now' to being safe shutdown. There were arguments made against i= t >> > 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 t= o >> > '-r' behavior. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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? >=20 >=20 > Other systems have the behavior I'm advocating. We are the odd duck. This m= eans we tend to violate POLA here. And there is no good reason to do this wh= en fastboot is available. Nobody that advocated to keep this difference as u= seful 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. I= n 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. >=20 Well, to be honest, I=E2=80=99m used to the current behavior and would prefe= r to keep it (POLA for existing users). I didn=E2=80=99t answer to advocate a= gainst 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 gener= al 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=E2=80=99s a =E2=80=9C= pick your battles=E2=80=9D situation. There is and will be so much to suck u= p, arguing about this with someone who clearly put some thought into it seem= s like a waste of everybody=E2=80=99s time. Cheers Michael > Warner=20 >=20 >=20 >> And no, I don't really have an axe to grind in this matter. >>=20 >> 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 --Apple-Mail-6986E708-BC30-405F-A67C-32925770B633 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 22. Jun 2022, at 04= :03, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:

=EF=BB=BF

=
On Tue,= Jun 21, 2022, 6:35 PM Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org> wrote:
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 advoca= ting. We are the odd duck. This means we tend to violate POLA here. And ther= e is no good reason to do this when fastboot is available. Nobody that advoc= ated to keep this difference as useful the last time it came up still wants t= o advocate. Most people find the behavior annoying and only a vanishingly sm= all minority of people like it. In fact, so far nobody has even asked to ple= ase 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= =E2=80=99m used to the current behavior and would prefer to keep it (POLA fo= r existing users). I didn=E2=80=99t answer to advocate against the change as=

1. I have no metric to counter your argument that t= his 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 t= o the new behavior
3. Given the amount of change in the world righ= t now, it=E2=80=99s a =E2=80=9Cpick your battles=E2=80=9D situation. There i= s and will be so much to suck up, arguing about this with someone who clearl= y put some thought into it seems like a waste of everybody=E2=80=99s time.

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.ph= p
= --Apple-Mail-6986E708-BC30-405F-A67C-32925770B633--