On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 8:20 AM William L. Thomson Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-03-03 at 08:05 +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: > > > > > That's not what it says, no. It shows the opposite relationship: a > > session may "own" a set of processes – it is not run by any of those > > processes. > > But a logind session lives within. Within what? > > Sadly, may have to toss most of the contributed code, and if it came > from AI, great, but if it is a young person's first foray into FOSS, > most unfortunate, and I am still leaning towards a next gen FOSS > developer in the making! Fingers crossed. > > But clearly the implementation is off. I may have to check out spawny > someday to see if it does anything correctly, but I doubt it multi- > seats so that is moot otherwise. > > > One of those processes is considered to be the "session leader" by > > logind (these days it's gdm-session-worker, previously it could be > > gnome-session directly), but that's relevant only as far as its > > existence (if the leader exits, the session is considered abandoned); > > the leader does not communicate with logind in any specific way and > > is just the root of the session's process tree. > > Thanks, GDM seems just overly complex, I stopped running GDM and Gnome > long ago, though I have long preferred it, C, etc. But the systemd and > other stuff, no thanks. > That is not relevant to what I said.
