Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:45:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Michael Gmelin <grembo@FreeBSD.org>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org>, Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Updating reboot's default Message-ID: <202206231545.25NFjV9d061680@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfoMTVCMdG7Gy_x0W=-YFr1rz4-uH9nfutDb3AdALWA8Rg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:03 AM Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22. Jun 2022, at 04:03, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > ? > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 6:35 PM Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org> > > 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. I'll once again assert your exposure to the "larger community" is only valid when you restric the set of "community" to be developers. I absolutely assert you are not in tune with the joe blow off the street user of FreeBSD that rarely if ever interacts with the project. > > 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 > >> > > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202206231545.25NFjV9d061680>