No, that's just Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek's explanation repeated ... by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek. I see from elsewhere on this page that you have unwisely bought into the idea promulgated on that page that Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek will "work with upstream authors and Fedora maintainers of programs like screen and tmux". No, xe won't; and demonstrably has not.
You need to look at some of the history here. Over the course of the past six years, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek has twice cycled around the same loop, once in 2011 and once in 2016. Xe goes to the developers of tmux, tells them that tmux needs to change to be systemd specific, and the developers of tmux ask why systemd cannot provide the same semantics for interactive login sessions that have been employed for the past 38 years, with HUP for session hangup and TERM/KILL at system shutdown; or why at the very least xe does not talk to the C library people. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek goes away, and then comes back about 5 years later with the exact same thing, unchanged.
Unfortunately, buying into that Fedora wiki page is as unwise as buying into the rather erroneous Freedesktop explanation of how version 2 cgroups work. You will note that the wiki page dates from around the same time as Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek's last cycle around the loop, which hit the headlines last year.
I've sometimes used it (or ve) in the past, because there's no good gender-neutral pronoun and I don't like to assume. (This is partly a politeness thing and partly an accuracy thing.)
Occasionally when I would do so, people would get confrontational about it, so I mostly stopped. But now that means I sometimes waste time trying to find someone's gender even though that's totally irrelevant, and/or try to work around needing a pronoun at all, and/or use "they" even though I don't like it. None of these solutions is great.
(Btw, I don't parse you as confrontational. Comments like yours wouldn't have bothered me.)
I don't get it. They say that the default should be to kill everything that doesn't opt out, but that already has been the default. SIGHUP gets sent to all processes, and those processes can explicitly ignore SIGHUP. In the new scheme, SIGKILL gets sent to all processes, except if the process has requested not to be killed through systemd's API. A misbehaving program in the old scheme would still be misbehaving in the new scheme, so there is no added benefit.
The added "benefit" is that once more systemd gets to define behavior.
Systemd is not about building refinements on unix, it is about turning Linux into something like OSX or Android. a OS that use unix semantics only for bootstrapping convenience.
Effectively they are turning the Linux kernel into a convenient source of drivers, but beyond that could not care one bit about unix.
I really wish i could find the interview again where it mentions that Poettering in the past have advocated throwing away the chapters on unix programming from one of the seminal works on programming unix and Linux.
That's what I'm getting, but I'm trying to at least give systemd advocates the benefit of the doubt. When I have the time and energy, it can be a good use of time to poke at people with questions.
