Love it or loathe it, systemctl is trying to do the right thing with regard to stability and data preservation.
If you really mean it, the manual offers a few levels of strength beyond the plain one: -i (don’t check for busy processes, which is what’s going on in the meme), -f (force, presumably asks even less nicely), and -f -f (don’t even ask, just do it now, preservation be damned).
It should give you the option to abort the shutdown and sort out whatever process it is though! Or at least let you kill it manually from the shutdown terminal. I know you can technically do that with the emergency shell but I don’t like leaving that enabled. Thankfully I rarely get this issue anymore anyway
I love how this comment suggests every fucking alternative doesn’t or wouldn’t. That’s just bloody arrogance.
Systemd’s entire existence is against best coding practice. Famously, when called out just on the ability to work with others, the systemd team represented trends ably.
Never have I raged at a machine and demanded it tell me what the flying flaming fuck it was actually doing now than when systemd was trying to do what I’m charitably deciding is the right thing.
Why would be doing the right thing now? It honestly only does a thing through luck and race conditions anyway.
You can do that to Windows. They may have gotten better, but I know that my friend that ran Debian Unstable back in the late '90s-'00s swore that if he didn’t properly shut down the machine every year or so, it would mess up his build.
I have a, honest to goodness breaks the electron flow, power switch for a reason, the shutdown command was a warning not a request.
Such wise words.
Love it or loathe it, systemctl is trying to do the right thing with regard to stability and data preservation.
If you really mean it, the manual offers a few levels of strength beyond the plain one:
-i(don’t check for busy processes, which is what’s going on in the meme),-f(force, presumably asks even less nicely), and-f -f(don’t even ask, just do it now, preservation be damned).It should give you the option to abort the shutdown and sort out whatever process it is though! Or at least let you kill it manually from the shutdown terminal. I know you can technically do that with the emergency shell but I don’t like leaving that enabled. Thankfully I rarely get this issue anymore anyway
I love how this comment suggests every fucking alternative doesn’t or wouldn’t. That’s just bloody arrogance.
Systemd’s entire existence is against best coding practice. Famously, when called out just on the ability to work with others, the systemd team represented trends ably.
Never have I raged at a machine and demanded it tell me what the flying flaming fuck it was actually doing now than when systemd was trying to do what I’m charitably deciding is the right thing.
Why would be doing the right thing now? It honestly only does a thing through luck and race conditions anyway.
How did you get that from their sentence, what the fuck?
I’m not sure I’m a fan of systemctl either, but I think your hatred of it has caused you to read way too much into what I said.
You can do that to Windows. They may have gotten better, but I know that my friend that ran Debian Unstable back in the late '90s-'00s swore that if he didn’t properly shut down the machine every year or so, it would mess up his build.
Runs debian unstable. Shuts down his machine every year or so.
For Debian, “unstable” just means “not running a five year old compiler”.
ps -ax -o pid | xargs kill -9I feel the same way when I use my turn signals. I’m not asking.
(assuming of course it’s safe to follow through)