Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
    ...
    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
    ...
    For those who are interested, that Debian dev spoke at DebConf recently:
    http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...s_debunked.ogv
    and
    http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...th_systemd.ogv

    Lennart also spoke:
    http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...he_default.ogv

    The whole list of videos:
    http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...ebconf13/high/
    Last edited by mark45; 08-24-2013, 03:45 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
      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.
      It's not a CLA at all, it's a promise to not sue over MS patents.

      Comment


      • #33
        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.
        If Debian intends to move to systemd they would have gotten something more up to date in their Sid repositories instead of systemd v44.

        Slow switch != keep an ancient version in the unstable and testing repos. Especially not for an init daemon that is already at v2xx.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
          If Debian intends to move to systemd they would have gotten something more up to date in their Sid repositories instead of systemd v44.

          Slow switch != keep an ancient version in the unstable and testing repos. Especially not for an init daemon that is already at v2xx.
          They have systemd 204 in experimental at least
          and upstart 1.6.1 in unstable
          Last edited by Akka; 08-24-2013, 10:54 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Honton View Post
            Fewer features than systemd
            Smaller community than systemd
            Non-free Contributor agreement forcing contributors to relicense to non-free.

            What is there not to hate?
            Except Upstart has been thoroughly tested and systemd is only used in Fedora, openSUSE and Arch (all of them are alpha-quality distros).

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
              Except Upstart has been thoroughly tested and systemd is only used in Fedora, openSUSE and Arch (all of them are alpha-quality distros).
              Thouroughly tested is the reason you give when you don't have anything else to complain about. You should also mention that systemd has bugs and that its newer so people have to learn it and that bears shit in the woods. All these cheap reasons are just complains, unless you have a usecase which you tried and failed with systemd and the upstream didn't bother helping you.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by mark45 View Post
                Thouroughly tested is the reason you give when you don't have anything else to complain about. You should also mention that systemd has bugs and that its newer so people have to learn it and that bears shit in the woods. All these cheap reasons are just complains, unless you have a usecase which you tried and failed with systemd and the upstream didn't bother helping you.
                It's a good reason. Canonical do not want to de-stabilise the system simply by changing the plumbing layer, sorry.

                And since you don't use Ubuntu - wtf are you complaining about?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                  Except Upstart has been thoroughly tested and systemd is only used in Fedora, openSUSE and Arch (all of them are alpha-quality distros).
                  openSUSE most definetly is not "alpha-quality" and systemd is used by many other distributions on top of those including Mandriva, Mageia, Chakra, NixOS, Sabayon... and it's going to be used on RHEL 7 (late 2013) and SUSE Linux Enterprise 12 (mid 2014). It's also used by Tizen and Sailfish on mobile. It's mandated by GENEVI Alliance for IVI systems and so on.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                    Except Upstart has been thoroughly tested and systemd is only used in Fedora, openSUSE and Arch (all of them are alpha-quality distros).
                    ...and yet, SystemD is much better than Upstart, no contest.... Upstart is okay, even decent but nothing to "write home about"... For example: Last week, i decided to take a look at 13.10 daily build <i wanted to see Mir + see if ubuntu had anything interesting happening on their desktop these days>... After installing it to a partition, i quickly noticed Ubuntu takes 10-15 seconds longer to boot than my Archlinux installation. (yup, systemd is much faster to boot and much more tweakable). 2nd. I experienced graphical artifacts / juttter in Unity/Compiz and generally, it wasn't a pleasent experience. 3rd. Unity crashed on me, for no apparent reason. 4th. I played around with Mir - which didn't work very well and i experienced a segmentation fault within minutes ~ awesome QA going on at Canonical.

                    Funny how you consider all of these other distro's to be alpha; yet in less than 1 hour of using Ubuntu, i experienced a number of problems, that i don't experience at all, on my "alpha-grade" distribution... (and typically, Ubuntu has historically shipped half-baked / alpha-grade software in their distro).

                    Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                    It's a good reason. Canonical do not want to de-stabilise the system simply by changing the plumbing layer, sorry.
                    Out of curiousity; How long have you been using Ubuntu? ....I ask because throughtout Ubuntu's history they have shipped alpha-grade software as core components of their OS. - PulseAudio and Compiz are two OBVIOUS examples. -> I imagine we could also consider much of Canonical/Ubuntu's "downstream patchs" on XYZ toolkit/lib/etc could also be considered Alpha-grade, depending on the scope of their changes, since typically these are patches rejected or not even submitted upstream in the first place (that's not a vote of confidence)... Canonical is known for shipping half-baked buggy code onto their users. (and in the case of compiz - aside from some performance enhancements, Compiz is much easier to break now, than before Canonical took it under their wing... Hell, they didn't even remove options from CCSM that are 100% broken <even when they knew about them, FFS!>)... Obviously, Mir will be another example of largely untested, alpha grade software being used as a core peice of their distro...

                    besides all of that, Ubuntu is already pulling in logind (systemd) and my guess is that in the future; the benefits they currently see by using upstart are going to be out-weighed by the benefits of using Systemd (which is a superior init system). But likely, Canonical/Ubuntu wouldn't even consider doing that until Debian users (not Ubuntu users) have used / tested systemd quite a bit ~ since it is largely debian developers who do most of the hardwork that Ubuntu/Canonical benefits from. (what 80%+ pakcages come from debian).
                    Last edited by ninez; 08-25-2013, 10:20 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ninez View Post
                      ...and yet, SystemD is much better than Upstart, no contest.... Upstart is okay, even decent but nothing to "write home about"... For example: Last week, i decided to take a look at 13.10 daily build <i wanted to see Mir + see if ubuntu had anything interesting happening on their desktop these days>... After installing it to a partition, i quickly noticed Ubuntu takes 10-15 seconds longer to boot than my Archlinux installation. (yup, systemd is much faster to boot and much more tweakable). 2nd. I experienced graphical artifacts / juttter in Unity/Compiz and generally, it wasn't a pleasent experience. 3rd. Unity crashed on me, for no apparent reason. 4th. I played around with Mir - which didn't work very well and i experienced a segmentation fault within minutes ~ awesome QA going on at Canonical.

                      Funny how you consider all of these other distro's to be alpha; yet in less than 1 hour of using Ubuntu, i experienced a number of problems, that i don't experience at all, on my "alpha-grade" distribution... (and typically, Ubuntu has historically shipped half-baked / alpha-grade software in their distro).
                      You can't seriously judge the overall stability of Ubuntu (or any other distro) by testing a development release.
                      And, in this case, 13.10 is not even "feature-frozen", witch means that the bug-fixing sprint did not even start.

                      besides all of that, Ubuntu is already pulling in logind (systemd) and my guess is that in the future; the benefits they currently see by using upstart are going to be out-weighed by the benefits of using Systemd (which is a superior init system).
                      I believe that Ubuntu will switch to Systemd if it comes a time where switching would really out-weighed the benefits of keeping Upstart. That's not currently the case.
                      Canonical is known to be pragmatical (that mostly why they generate so much hate on Phoronix and other niches, they just move forward without caring about what other may think). I don't see any reason for them to keep Upstart forever IF systemd becomes more interesting for them in the future.
                      Last edited by Malizor; 08-25-2013, 11:04 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X