Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • liam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • amehaye
    replied
    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*.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    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.
    That really depends on the license. With a BSD licensed project, everyone has the right to sub license as they see fit even without them being a contributor but with these sort of agreements, only the commercial vendor has the right to sublicense the whole project and noone else does. That is called asymmetrical licensing.

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxGamer
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    They might be. They are already using parts of systemd. I'd say it depends on what Debian does. If they switch to systemd, Ubuntu might also do that. But, of course, for now they are sticking with Upstart.
    Debian will not switch to systemd do to it's BSD kernels etc

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by mendieta View Post
    So, the article states:


    (emphasys mine). So, are they planning to switch to systemd? (I certainly hope so). Or am I reading too far between the lines?
    They might be. They are already using parts of systemd. I'd say it depends on what Debian does. If they switch to systemd, Ubuntu might also do that. But, of course, for now they are sticking with Upstart.

    Originally posted by benalib View Post
    and this
    Microsoft?s Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msn...munity.mspx#E3
    What about it? It just says they won't sue over patents.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by nll_a
    Wrong. The author of the code keeps her copyright and can relicense it under any license she wants.
    Not wrong at all. The author has only the ability to license his/her own code. The commercial vendor whom you granted a broad license has the sole right to sub license the entire codebase under non-free terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by benalib View Post
    Fedora's agreement does not require copyright assignment nor any kind of sublicensing. The "default " license is MIT but you can choose to contribute under any free and open source license you want.

    Leave a comment:


  • bwat47
    replied
    Originally posted by mendieta View Post
    So, the article states:


    (emphasys mine). So, are they planning to switch to systemd? (I certainly hope so). Or am I reading too far between the lines?
    They currently have no plans. At the moment they have been hacking some parts of systemd into upstart, such as logind.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X