Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

[RahulSundaram]

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."

[amehaye]

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*.

[RahulSundaram]

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.

[RahulSundaram]

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.

[LinuxGamer]

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

[GreatEmerald]

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.

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.

[RahulSundaram]

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.

[RahulSundaram]

how about this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...utor_Agreement

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.

[bwat47]

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.

[LinuxGamer]

No it can't. Not by anyone other than the copyright holder.

You can use BSD-licensed code in proprietary projects, and publish it as binaries without releasing the source, even if you make changes in it, but the license of the code still stays the same, and you have to include the license notice to your (proprietary) software - it's why Mac OS includes the BSD license notice somewhere in its documentation.

most of it's here? http://www.apple.com/opensource/