Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

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

  • #41
    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.
    Oh, so that's why they put an untested, insecure, alpha-quality graphics server with an untested fork of a X compatibility layer in their next release. Makes sense.

    Comment


    • #42
      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 is not an 'alpha quality distro'. Its fairly conservative and has an 8 month release cycle. I'd say opensuse is more stable and less buggy then recent ubuntu releases, and more conservative than ubuntu in general.

      Ubuntu (the only distro that uses upstart) is often pushing things before they are ready, is based on random snapshots from debian unstable, and is certainly not known for its lack of bugs and stability, so your comparison of "systemd is unstable because distros that use it are bleeding edge" doesn't hold much water. As someone that has used ubuntu for years, I consider it "beta quality" software at best. The non-LTS releases have always been glorified betas.

      I don't have anything against upstart itself, its a decent init system, but systemd is superior. I can understand canonical not wanting to adopt it though because they already have their own decent init system.

      Also many more distros use systemd then the ones on your list, although they are not "major" distros (with the exception of mageia/mandriva maybe). Off the top of my head: Mageia, ROSA Linux, Mandriva, Sabayon, Frugalware, Chakra, and some mobile platforms are also using it, tizen and mer (mer is the base for jolla's sailfish os).

      And the upcoming RHEL 7 will be using it, and RHEL would not include it unless it was rock solid and ready. And from posts I've seen from some debian developers lately, debian also looks like it will be adopting systemd in the future (but it almost certainly won't happen in jessie, mabye jessie +1). Here's some talks from a debian dev about systemd: http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...s_debunked.ogv, http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...th_systemd.ogv.

      And this post: http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg...-portable.html

      Not embracing these features and staying with sysvinit indefinitely is not a viable option if Debian wants to remain relevant for today’s demands. In the short term, the migration to systemd will cause additional maintenance effort for individual package maintainers, but it will pay off in the long term.
      So in conclusion systemd is pretty well tested and used in various distros today, even if some of the major distros that have adopted it are "bleeding edge". And we have several extremely "stable" distros (RHEL) which will have it in its next major version, and (debian) which is moving (slowly like debian always does ) to adopting it in the future.
      Last edited by bwat47; 08-25-2013, 11:01 AM.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Malizor View Post
        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.
        12.04 was no better... and as someone who (used to) actively participate in Compiz development (during that cycle); 12.04 was even worse than 13.10 :\ - which is embarrasing being as that is an LTS release... And who said i was judging "overall stability" - i cited a few components which behaved like junk. The fact is; While according to bogot all of these other distro's are alpha quality - i run a tonne of components built from GIT repositories and my (Arch) system is far more stable and reliable than Ubuntu (development release, LTS or any other ubu release)...

        Originally posted by Malizor View Post
        I believe that Ubuntu will switch to Systemd if it comes a time for Ubuntu 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.
        Systemd is already much better than upstart and has been for quite a while... Canonical may not see that yet, but it's not a matter of whether Systemd's benefits outwiegh those of Upstart. - it's only a matter of whether Canonical/Ubuntu developers realize that. (or wait for debian to do the majority of work for them).
        Last edited by ninez; 08-25-2013, 11:10 AM.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Malizor View Post
          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.
          Since you consider those other distros to be alpha quality, it's a fair comparison, alpha versus alpha.

          Comment


          • #45
            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).
            Arch Linux isn't alpha-quality, it is actually very stable. I actually switched to Arch Linux from Ubuntu, because of bugs in Ubuntu 8.04.
            OpenSUSE also doesn't seem alpha-quality.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
              Since you consider those other distros to be alpha quality, it's a fair comparison, alpha versus alpha.
              In all fariness; it was not him, but instead bogot that suggested that. But yeah, if bogot is going to suggest that all of these other distros are alpha; than yes, a comparison is fair-game and in this case; Ubuntu loses big time.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Rallos Zek View Post
                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.
                How have I not noticed your name is an EQ reference until now?
                There's always Gentoo for those who don't like sd they are still cooking udev AFAIK.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by ninez View Post
                  In all fariness; it was not him
                  This.

                  But yeah, if bogot is going to suggest that all of these other distros are alpha; than yes, a comparison is fair-game and in this case; Ubuntu loses big time.
                  I agree that Ubuntu never was a perfectly stable distro. You usually had to wait 2 or three months after a release before having most visible bugs fixed.
                  But things are improving in this regard. For example 13.04 was usable from day one for me, which was actually the first time since I use Ubuntu.
                  Development releases are also much more reliable than before. Now, when you download a daily, you can be reasonably sure that it will boot and that you will have a graphical session. That was not the case before.
                  Upgrades are also smoother than before (way less breakages).
                  In fact it became a bit boring to test an Ubuntu development release since everything is usually fine with it. There are bugs but the system is usable most of the time.

                  Of course there is still work to do, but it's definitely moving in the right direction.

                  Now, 13.10 will most likely be a special case because of Mir (still not switched on by default, so we don't know yet how much issues it will bring). But it makes sense to integrate it early to be more confident in its reliability in the next LTS.
                  "intermediate" releases are for advanced users anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Malizor View Post
                    This.



                    I agree that Ubuntu never was a perfectly stable distro. You usually had to wait 2 or three months after a release before having most visible bugs fixed.
                    But things are improving in this regard. For example 13.04 was usable from day one for me, which was actually the first time since I use Ubuntu.
                    Development releases are also much more reliable than before. Now, when you download a daily, you can be reasonably sure that it will boot and that you will have a graphical session. That was not the case before.
                    I could not disagree more. 13.04 was just as bad if not worse. For example 13.04 was released with a MASSIVE kernel bug because canonical decided to land some major patches to their kernel only days before 13.04's release, which not only b0rked hdmi for many, it also caused kernel panics on boot and/or audio not working at all on boot, and they took forever to release an update to fix it:

                    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...x/+bug/1169984

                    UOA/empathy is also extremely buggy in 13.04 to the point where its pretty much not usable: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...y/+bug/1170832, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...s/+bug/1069882, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...y/+bug/1168582 (I don't have any of these problems with upstream empathy/GOA, only ubuntu's crappy buggy UOA). And this one: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...n/+bug/1159411

                    Really annoying problems with ubuntu's patched nautilus 3.6 (I don't have issues like this at all with the same version of nautilus in any other distro): https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...s/+bug/1173966

                    Really annoying issues with the version of glib in 13.04, that causes bugs in software such as pidgin: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...n/+bug/1108056 (don't have this problem with pidgin in other distros).

                    And some very annoying visual polish issues that also effect usability: b0rked libreoffice global menu: https://bugs.launchpad.net/indicator...n/+bug/1153350, unreadable text in nautilus gear menu caused by 13.04's gtk theme: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...s/+bug/1159449

                    13.04 is just as buggy as previous releases were. If ubuntu every hopes to achieve their goal of reaching mainstream, they need some serious improvements in QA. Its not OK for releases to be this buggy if you are aiming at the mainstream market.

                    Ubuntu has become synonymous with the word "buggy" for me
                    Last edited by bwat47; 08-25-2013, 12:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Malizor View Post
                      Now, 13.10 will most likely be a special case because of Mir (still not switched on by default, so we don't know yet how much issues it will bring). But it makes sense to integrate it early to be more confident in its reliability in the next LTS.
                      It doesn't, because using XMir doesn't. If it'd make any sense to use XMir for the desktops, then you'd be right.

                      Originally posted by Malizor View Post
                      "intermediate" releases are for advanced users anyway.
                      Citation needed.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X