Canonical Releases Upstart 1.10 Init Daemon

[Sonadow]

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.

[GreatEmerald]

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.

[mark45]

...
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/pub/debian-meetings/2013/debconf13/high/980_systemd_myths_debunked.ogv

and

http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2013/debconf13/high/981_Making_your_package_work_with_systemd.ogv

Lennart also spoke:

http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2013/debconf13/high/983_Why_Debian_should_or_should_not_make_systemd_the_default.ogv

The whole list of videos:

http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2013/debconf13/high/

[Rallos Zek]

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.

[LinuxGamer]

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

[bwat47]

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.

[andydread]

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.

[mrugiero]

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.

how about this

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_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.

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.

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...

[johnc]

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.

[liam]

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.