Spotify Switches From Debian To Ubuntu

[GreatEmerald]

It confuses me why Spotify weighed in on the Debian systemd debate though, if they were already decided on switching to Ubuntu (with upstart?!) for a long term.

I'm pretty sure they're switching to Ubuntu with systemd for a long term. It's not like you can't install it on Ubuntu, it's jut not the default configuration (and neither was it default on Debian).

[doom_Oo7]

It confuses me why Spotify weighed in on the Debian systemd debate though, if they were already decided on switching to Ubuntu (with upstart?!) for a long term.

They were certainly aware than debian switching to sd would imply an ubuntu switch...

[asdfblah]

I'm pretty sure they're switching to Ubuntu with systemd for a long term. It's not like you can't install it on Ubuntu, it's jut not the default configuration (and neither was it default on Debian).

AFAIK, there is no official support for systemd in the latest LTS. You need to install packages from a PPA.
It simply doesn't make sense...

[eidolon]

I'm pretty sure they're switching to Ubuntu with systemd for a long term. It's not like you can't install it on Ubuntu, it's jut not the default configuration (and neither was it default on Debian).

I'm assuming that configuration won't be supported by Canonical for 14.04 since it isn't the default, and instead comes from a PPA, as Canonical only supports the Main and Restricted repositories (this only matters if Spotify has a support contract or would entertain the notion at some point in Trusty's lifetime). I understand what you're saying about Debian, but since Spotify has gone with 14.04, I wonder if they won't actually be delaying the speed with which they adopt systemd, as inertia and "good enough" are powerful beasts, which (to me) somewhat waters down Spotify's apparent gung-ho attitude with regard to systemd (after all, someone / some people from Spotify did feel the need to weigh in on an internal Debian Project debate and appeal to Spotify's "5000 physical servers and well over a thousand virtual servers" Debian deployment to lend an air of weight/importance to the comment).

I am not implying Spotify personnel aren't free to or otherwise aren't right to make decisions with regard to Spotify, whatever those decisions may be.

They were certainly aware than debian switching to sd would imply an ubuntu switch...

I attribute it to my own cynicism, but that thought crossed my mind as well. I would like to know whether Spofity had reached a migration decision prior to bug 727708 being opened; after bug 727708 was opened, but before "Spotify infrastructure and operations" weighed in on the bug report (https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte.../msg00287.html); after that comment, but before the bug was closed; after the bug was closed, but before Mark Shuttleworth's "Losing graciously" blog post (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316); or after Mark Shuttleworth's post. I see different possible implications depending on the timing.

Again, I am not suggesting Spotify shouldn't do what its relevant decision makers deem to be in Spotify's best interest, but I do now at least question some of the nature of their input into the Debian init decision.

[akincer]

Whatever you might think of what's going on in the desktop space, the server version is a different animal. The LTS versions are really really nice.

Not sure if Spotify is paying for support. If they are, they could probably get Canonical to agree to support just about any configuration they wanted with that large of a footprint.

[GreatEmerald]

I'm assuming that configuration won't be supported by Canonical for 14.04 since it isn't the default, and instead comes from a PPA, as Canonical only supports the Main and Restricted repositories (this only matters if Spotify has a support contract or would entertain the notion at some point in Trusty's lifetime). I understand what you're saying about Debian, but since Spotify has gone with 14.04, I wonder if they won't actually be delaying the speed with which they adopt systemd, as inertia and "good enough" are powerful beasts, which (to me) somewhat waters down Spotify's apparent gung-ho attitude with regard to systemd (after all, someone / some people from Spotify did feel the need to weigh in on an internal Debian Project debate and appeal to Spotify's "5000 physical servers and well over a thousand virtual servers" Debian deployment to lend an air of weight/importance to the comment).

Before, Spotify used a non-supported Debian init configuration on top of generally non-directly-supported Debian itself. Now they'll be using a non-supported Ubuntu init on top of supported Ubuntu itself. I don't see any loss anywhere. If they could deal with it on Debian, they can deal with it on Ubuntu just the same.

[eidolon]

Before, Spotify used a non-supported Debian init configuration on top of generally non-directly-supported Debian itself. Now they'll be using a non-supported Ubuntu init on top of supported Ubuntu itself. I don't see any loss anywhere. If they could deal with it on Debian, they can deal with it on Ubuntu just the same.

I wasn't aware Spotify was already using systemd or any other non-default init on Debian, or are you speaking to the fact that the Debian Project offers no commercial support? As I said, Spotify's 14.04 configuration only matters to the extent they can get support for it; if that's not something they are interested in or is otherwise not a concern of theirs, then their 14.04 setup is of no matter at all.

[stevenc]

I wonder if they won't actually be delaying the speed with which they adopt systemd

I believe they are, I suppose systemd won't be officially (long-term) supported in an Ubuntu LTS release until 16.04, and switching to that won't happen overnight either.

If Debian squeeze LTS had been a thing when they decided this, they could have chosen to stay with it for now, being supported up to, and for 1 year after, the jessie release (with systemd), which should be coming early next year.

The idea for a Debian LTS was announced internally to Debian developers in March 2014:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/03/msg00004.html

Anyone could have used initiative to fund or voice support for an LTS to make it happen sooner.

p.s. systemd sucks anyway, they also could have switched to FreeBSD

[stevenc]

Another, much simpler explanation is that most people on their staff right now are users/fans of Ubuntu rather than Debian. And despite the reasonings given to management, this was just the personal preference of the majority of their staff? If you look closely at the email on Debian mailing lists it mentions that one Debian developer no longer works at Spotify.

This would explain why they didn't go for RHEL/CentOS either, despite having very long-term supported releases, and systemd already (in RHEL7). Or FreeBSD.

Why do they need 5000 servers anyway? Netflix streams video, accounting for more than half the Internet traffic in the US at peak times, from only 50 servers or so. FreeBSD, just saying.

[3vi1]

ubuntu is more or less mashup of the regular current version with longer life time. its basically regular version with slapped "LTS" and "5 year warranty" stickers on it

Having gone through 4 LTS cycles on Ubuntu (and using every intermediate version), I'd say this is patently untrue. Anyone who's actually been using Ubuntu is likely to agree that the LTS releases are always the "boring" releases because they are planned for stability and support. The big changes always occur the release after LTS (though sometimes notable items may fall to the next), and the architecture changes get more and more conservative approaching LTS. At least, that's my impression as someone who stays on the alpha repos and watches the daily changes.