Upstart Still Has A Bright Future On Ubuntu Linux

[wargames]

This is the first thing that came to my mind:

[Bathroom Humor]

There are a lot of people who dislike Systemd, as well as some who dislike Upstart. But I have a feeling that most people who dislike Upstart have no idea why they dislike it, and those that do are probably not ok with Systemd either.
But it's kind of odd to see people getting so upset over software that
1) they don't use and
2) doesn't effect them in any way.
I mean... it's a bit childish. Anyway, it's good that they are improving it, since they are sticking with it anyway. It's better to not let things stagnate.

[Alex Sarmiento]

I have the felling that most linux users are just geeks that love to engage in nonsensical tribal wars .

[jrch2k8]

Rumors don't count at all. Also, you realize that this article was about improving Upstart, don't you? Do you think that they should stop improving Upstart because systemd exists? Should Debian stop improving just because some people deem Ubuntu to be the better Debian? Should no one improve any other DE/WM, because the Gnome people think they have the best?

well that is unrelated to the post i replied, but anyway is certainly a step up but they need way more to catch up with systemd now but ok it is an start, ofc i assume they won't since probably they will focus in ubuntu features only pretty much like Mir, so is safe to assume upstart will stay in the ubuntu OS and systemd in all other distros which is fine

[finalzone]

Rumors don't count at all. Also, you realize that this article was about improving Upstart, don't you? Do you think that they should stop improving Upstart because systemd exists? Should Debian stop improving just because some people deem Ubuntu to be the better Debian? Should no one improve any other DE/WM, because the Gnome people think they have the best?

Upstart had its time where there were no better alternative to SysV. According to Ohloh:

https://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=Upstart&project_1=OpenRC&project_2=systemd

With that low amount of contributors, Upstart will always play catch up against systemd meaning it made little sense to actively support an outdated tightly controlled by a singe company init other than maintenance.

[valeriodean]

The story is always the same: Canonical wants the control more than the features.
By the technical point of view, systemd is superior.
But, as per the display server, the possibility to control the project is more important than its technical aspects.
Doesn't matter how much upstart will remain behind systemd, they will never switch. End of the story.

[AJSB]

..and how about Debian 8 ?

I heard that Debian was discussing to move on to Upstart or systemd ...

[leif81]

There are a lot of people who dislike Systemd, as well as some who dislike Upstart. But I have a feeling that most people who dislike Upstart have no idea why they dislike it, and those that do are probably not ok with Systemd either.
But it's kind of odd to see people getting so upset over software that
1) they don't use and
2) doesn't effect them in any way.
I mean... it's a bit childish. Anyway, it's good that they are improving it, since they are sticking with it anyway. It's better to not let things stagnate.

Even without knowing the technical differences most people recognize that this is the VHS vs. Betamax showdown of Linux init systems.

[Rallos Zek]

Kudos to Ubuntu for staying away from toxic rubbish.

[dh04000]

The story is always the same: Canonical wants the control more than the features.
By the technical point of view, systemd is superior.
But, as per the display server, the possibility to control the project is more important than its technical aspects.
Doesn't matter how much upstart will remain behind systemd, they will never switch. End of the story.

...... at the time of upstarts creation there wasn't systemd. The point of upstart was to address issues seen with sysV int. systemd was created after upstart in order to solve the similar problems seen with sysV int. Canonical was trying to fix the same problem as Red Hat was trying to solve with systemd. I don't see why you claim upstart as trying to control anything, they didn't refuse any patches from Red Hat. I don't see any evidence that Red Hat tried to work with Canonical on upstart to add features they deemed important. Nor is there any evidence that Canonical rejected attempts for others to contribute.

If you look at what actually happened, you could easily make the same aeguement that systemd is just an attempt for Red Hat to control the int. process. Especially considering how aggressively they have been breaking the int process such that other software HAVE to use systemd components just to start up thier system, something that wasn't needed before.

I don't see upstart breaking the int process to force other people to use components for it just to use linux.