Debian To Switch To Systemd Or Upstart

[dh04000]

If you are talking about cgroups, then no, that is not even close to a correct description about what happened. (Source: https://lwn.net/Articles/555920/)

Hmmmm..... I thought that I read here that a bunch of kernel features got moved to userspace and named systemd-foo, systemd-foo2, ect

I'm probably mistaken. Can someone whom has a better grip on this provide background info?

[grigi]

I haven't had to write services for SystemD yet, but here are my 2c:

Writing an upstart service that shuts down cleanly is nearly impossible, the documentation on upstart is practically non-existant, and every year or so, something changes so I need to re-do the upstart scripts.

Writing a sysvinit script is well documented and understood. A single script runs on many different systems happily and doesn't often hit edge cases.

Writing a OpenRC script is easy, documentation is clear. The script also keeps running over several years.


I would rate upstart as worse as a downgrade from sysvinit, because it is so finicky. Sure it is faster, but... sigh.
I would rate OpenRC as a significant upgrade over sysvinit, it is fast, reliable, easy to use, and currently still supported. I think upstart may be faster for startup, but I think OpenRC is faster for shutdown.

[schmidtbag]

Just another senseless discussion...

Instead of answering the technical questions like why X is better than Y, you all start hating and complaining that it is a conspiracy of Canonical IF Upstart would be considered by Debian. Of course not because of technical reasons, it's just because of politics !!!!111

Sorry but to me it seems that nobody of you has a clue of init systems but a Master's degree in trolling.

I was thinking the EXACT same thing. When Arch decided to use systemd, everyone freaked out. For me personally, the only thing I dislike about systemd is I find it a little less configurable and a tiny bit on the inconvenient side. I have no doubt that it is more bloated than sysvinit (though how much more so?) but from what I can tell, it's a lot faster too. I'd rather sacrifice a few extra MB for faster boot times.

I noticed many of these init systems are hated for the same reason KDE is - they were released a little bit too early, made a bad first impression, and now everyone's minds are written in stone even if the product happens to have fixed all of it's significant flaws.

[meltingrobot]

RHEL 6 uses upstart. But Red Hat 7 will use systemd.

RHEL6 uses sysinit, not upstart.

[dh04000]

And Tanglu come on, what is this ? Yet another is Linux distro that fades away within the next 3 years. Who cares what they use.

Lol. Their home page says this "A new GNU/Linux distribution based on Debian, designed for human beings". Sound familar? Their FAQ says that they don't have an official desktop, nor do they alter packages in anyway, so its "as the developer intended". Neither do they develop any original software. They literally have NOTHING new or original about them, just another spin under another name. Been then, seen that. It'll be dead sooner than 3 years by my calculations.

[k1l_]

oh wait?

RedHat inhouse Projects try to force downstream to use other RedHat Projects as default?

Someone call Captain Obvious

[wpoely86]

RHEL6 uses sysinit, not upstart.

https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Technical_Notes/deployment.html

In Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, init from the sysvinit package has been replaced with Upstart, an event-based init system. This system handles the starting of tasks and services during boot, stopping them during shutdown and supervising them while the system is running. For more information on Upstart itself, refer to the init(8) man page.

[AnonymousCoward]

Lol. Their home page says this "A new GNU/Linux distribution based on Debian, designed for human beings". Sound familar? Their FAQ says that they don't have an official desktop, nor do they alter packages in anyway, so its "as the developer intended". Neither do they develop any original software. They literally have NOTHING new or original about them, just another spin under another name. Been then, seen that. It'll be dead sooner than 3 years by my calculations.

Can you show us those calculations, or are you just trying to make your opinion sound sciency?

[meltingrobot]

https://access.redhat.com/site/docum...eployment.html

Ah, you are correct. I always just assumed it was sysinit since the commands were basically the same from RHEL5 to RHEL6. Either way, I know it's going to be a pain to learn all the new systemd commands when they switch with RHEL7. I use Fedora on my desktop, but so far, I haven't spent the time to switch from the chkconfig and service commands to the systemd ones.

[doom_Oo7]

Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface

Seriously, this was ok in the 70s. But now this IS the kind of design that would be bloated. Seriously, you have a computer to get stuff done, not to spend hours reading logs... And binary != proprietary (or else every picture and sound is proprietary ?), you can read the systemd logs perfectly well, and if you can't boot you can't read the sysvinit logs either, apart from using a livecd, etc..