Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    Debian will not switch to systemd do to it's BSD kernels etc
    That isn't necessarily true. They could switch to systemd and continue to ship both systemd native unit files and sysv init scripts for compatibility with niche ports of Debian to other kernels.

    Comment


    • #22
      Why is SystemD better than Upstart exactly?

      I hold no special love for Canonical, especially after MIR, but SystemD is as bad as, say, X. It is almost an entire operating system. SystemD is the anti-thesis of Linux - it tries to do everything (remember udev?). As far as I'm concerned SystemD is the worse solution, at least until it becomes modular *for real*.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by amehaye View Post
        As far as I'm concerned SystemD is the worse solution, at least until it becomes modular *for real*.
        systemd is very modular. In fact, Ubuntu is already using parts of systemd without using it as the init system which proves this. http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html "If you build systemd with all configuration options enabled you will build 69 individual binaries. These binaries all serve different tasks, and are neatly separated for a number of reasons. For example, we designed systemd with security in mind, hence most daemons run at minimal privileges (using kernel capabilities, for example) and are responsible for very specific tasks only, to minimize their security surface and impact. Also, systemd parallelizes the boot more than any prior solution. This parallization happens by running more processes in parallel. Thus it is essential that systemd is nicely split up into many binaries and thus processes. In fact, many of these binaries[1] are separated out so nicely, that they are very useful outside of systemd, too."

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Malizor View Post
          To be fair, this CLA is not used anymore (see the notice at the top of the page).
          But yes, AFAIK it was quite similar to the Canonical CLA.
          Thanks for pointing that out. I'm glad they removed that one clause.

          Comment


          • #25
            It's interesting that the Ubuntu-related news stories tend to get the threads with the most posts.

            Threads from stories about other distros = crickets.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Malizor View Post
              The contributor also has this right.
              AFAIK, he can also grant it to the whole world if he wants (eg. by publishing the patch with a BSD or MIT licence).
              The contributor has this right only for the fraction he/she commited. Canonical has this right for everything. That's still asymmetrical.
              A patch is considered derivative work, so the only way to change the license would be all of the contributors agreeing, or being Canonical. The first is very unlikely, and the patch without the code base is useless. If there is only one contributor, which is the case where "the contributor has this right, too", then there's no reason to sign someone else's CLA.

              Originally posted by benalib View Post
              how about this
              https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...utor_Agreement
              and this
              Microsoft?s Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...munity.mspx#E3
              The Fedora CLA you quote only says it defaults to MIT if you don't specify a license. If you do, then it will be respected, and nobody can relicense it.

              On the openSUSE thing, I didn't read it, but assuming it's some kind of asymmetrical CLA, the fact other distros take non free approaches doesn't alleviate the problem on Canonical. Just pointing fingers won't make Canonical's CLA more free or more symmetrical.

              Originally posted by nll_a
              The less people have that "right" the better. Merely contributing to a project shouldn't give anyone permission to relicense the whole thing.
              And how does that lead to a CLA? Just stick with GPL and that's it, if your concern is that there will exist proprietary relicensing. If there's a CLA assigning such right to a company, it's because they do want to do that.

              Originally posted by johnc View Post
              It's interesting that the Ubuntu-related news stories tend to get the threads with the most posts.

              Threads from stories about other distros = crickets.
              You will always get more discussion when there is conflict, so...

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by nll_a
                Where the fuck did you take that from?



                http://www.canonical.com/contributors
                Honton has been spewing this line for a while now. He is on a mission to bash.
                And totally ignoring the fact that
                1) As per Richard Stallman You are FREE to relicense GPL software
                2) the FSF demands you submit to a CLA and also to sign over the copyright to them.

                SO it would seem that gcc and the entire gnu userspace runs afoul of Honton's reasoning in his crusade to bash others.
                And we know he's going to try in a fruitless attempt to convice us by splitting hairs that the FSF CLA is good but Canonical CLA is bad.
                Its a total red herring arguement. Its all GPL3.....The End.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
                  Debian will not switch to systemd do to it's BSD kernels etc
                  Most debian developers/users consider these alternate kernels to be "toy projects", and they won't really impact debian's decision to use systemd or not. Very, very few people use these alternate kernels. Afaik debian is actually moving towards using systemd.

                  For example here's a post from a debian dev who definitely seems to believe debian should switch to systemd: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html

                  They also conducted a user poll (which the dev mentioned in that post), and ~62% of debian users that responded supported debian using systemd. I would say its a good bet that debian will switch to systemd in the future, its just the sensible thing to do.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                    Most debian developers/users consider these alternate kernels to be "toy projects", and they won't really impact debian's decision to use systemd or not. Very, very few people use these alternate kernels. Afaik debian is actually moving towards using systemd.

                    For example here's a post from a debian dev who definitely seems to believe debian should switch to systemd: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html

                    They also conducted a user poll (which the dev mentioned in that post), and ~62% of debian users that responded supported debian using systemd. I would say its a good bet that debian will switch to systemd in the future, its just the sensible thing to do.
                    i see he's not a fan of canonical this will be really good if they put systemd into Debian it will let them use the full power of the upcoming kernels systemd is becoming more intregrated into the kernel did you see the guys who are forking Debian? it's going to have a 9mo release and have updated packages

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Cheers to Ubuntu for being sane and not drinking the SystemD kool aid. I would never have thought that I would ever prefer Ubuntu over Arch Linux or OpenSuse but here we are.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X