Upstart Still Has A Bright Future On Ubuntu Linux

[nightmarex]

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

The Linux echo system is swimming with fun camps.

Alsa vs Pulse vs oss vs jack

Open drivers vs blobs

X vs mir vs wayland

Systemd vs upstart vs sysvinit vs OpenRc (included so a gentoo user doesn't knife me whilst I sleep).

Fragmentation as difficult as it can be has it's pluses. Imagine if we all had to use gnome shell or unity? If we all were stuck with vi for editing.

Let ubuntu do what it wants, other non buntu based distros just ignore them anyhow...

[Daktyl198]

The story is always the same: Canonical wants the control more than the features.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
See, this is funny to me because Systemd is using it's features to brute-force control...

Honestly, Systemd has more features but I like Upstart as a init system just fine. If I had a choice, I would use Upstart just because Systemd is a freaking bully.
They are pulling in external stuff that has/had NOTHING TO DO WITH SYSTEMD and making systemd a "dependency" for them, forcing anybody that wants to use those projects to use Systemd. That's not the way to get people to use your fking software.

If they want to unify everything under their flag, it would be better if they didn't force people into it. History shows people have a habit of revolting against things they are forced into.

[intellivision]

Systemd is not a redhat conspiracy, you need to add intel, samsung and the linux foundation as well. Or just accept the simple fact that those who does the real work decided to do a single stack approach inside the same git tree.

As of latest conman code assimilation and kdbus support is hitting systemd.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-November/014571.html

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/014294.html

Actually, the real work is done by the Qt team.
Qt 5 is shaping up to be a far better framework than GTK+ 3, and they're not forcing people to adopt systemd like the Gnome team is doing (I'm only counting Xorg releases since Wayland is still a couple of years off)

[AdamW]

...... 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.

Canonical requires contributors to its Launchpad-hosted projects to sign its CLA in order to make contributions: http://www.canonical.com/contributors . Red Hat's legal team has given an opinion that RH developers should not sign the CLA. That's clearly a roadblock, though you could argue that it's 'caused' by either Canonical or RH, depending on your proclivities. Still, if upstart were a true neutrally-hosted upstream project like systemd (which, despite it often being portrayed as a 'Red Hat project', is part of freedesktop.org), the issue wouldn't arise.

Lennart has explained in extensive detail why he decided to write systemd rather than contribute to upstart, right in the initial announcement of systemd: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html - scroll to the section "On Upstart". Lennart writes that "I can't say I agree with the general approach of Upstart." If you think the way an existing piece of software approaches a problem is fundamentally incorrect, you can't really 'contribute' to that piece of software to 'fix' the problem - you'd be turning it into an entirely different piece of software. It makes more sense to start a separate project based on what you believe to be the superior approach, which is what Lennart did.

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.

Again (this keeps coming up), people who argue this are betraying a misunderstanding of how Red Hat works. It assumes that people with @redhat.com in their names are basically minions whose job is to implement the Grand Plan created by the almighty Red Hat Management, which is admittedly how a lot of software companies work, more or less.

Red Hat really doesn't. The fact, as I mentioned above, that systemd lives at freedesktop.org - not redhat.com or fedoraproject.org or anywhere else RH-ish - is a significant indicator here. systemd is basically a Lennart Poettering project. It is not a Red Hat project. Lennart has been a guy who comes up with big shiny ideas since long before he was employed by Red Hat. He started working for RH, near as I can tell, in 2007 or 2008; PulseAudio, for instance, was started (as PortAudio) in 2004, and Lennart has stated that he started thinking about systemd in 2007.

RH hired Lennart because they thought PulseAudio was a valuable project and it would be good if its maintainer got to work on it full time: this is something RH and other Linux distributors have always seen as one of their responsibilities, to give a paycheck to the people who build key bits of F/OSS infrastructure. It's rather a different relationship from 'hey, code monkey, build this thing we want built'. RH staff like Lennart get a lot of freedom in choosing what they work on. Lennart didn't start working on systemd because Red Hat told him "we, Red Hat, want to build a new init system which we control, and you, Lennart, are going to write it for us!": Lennart started writing systemd because he thought it was the best thing he could write at that time. It was entirely his own project. He had to argue for it to become a Fedora and, later, RHEL feature on the merits; it doesn't get a free pass just because its author happens to be @redhat.com. There was nothing pre-ordained about Fedora or RHEL starting to use systemd; I can certainly think of projects that @redhat.com people have come up with, on company time, that have eventually petered out and not made it into Fedora or RHEL. That's just how things work in RH.

You can usually tell pretty easily if something is a 'Red Hat project' or a project Red Hat people work on. Spacewalk's a Red Hat Project, for instance. So's JBoss (or, er, WildFly, or whatever we're calling it now). systemd isn't a Red Hat Project. Neither is GNOME. If Lennart quit Red Hat tomorrow, Red Hat would not be able to appoint a new systemd lead; Lennart as a private individual 'owns' systemd, RH does not. If we fired the entire 'desktop' team tomorrow, GNOME would continue to exist, and those people would continue to have commit and ownership rights in it: Red Hat does not control those things.

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.

Citation needed!

[c117152]

Systemd is not a redhat conspiracy, you need to add intel, samsung and the linux foundation as well. Or just accept the simple fact that those who does the real work decided to do a single stack approach inside the same git tree.

As of latest conman code assimilation and kdbus support is hitting systemd.

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-November/014571.html

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/014294.html

First off, great news about conman. I've been waiting for it to merge in for ages.

Second, there's no conspiracy per say. But, seeing as, fixing the breakage means the guys doing the daily patch work maintenance are suddenly at risk of becoming somewhat redundant, lines are being drawn around wayland and systemd.

[AdamW]

Actually, the real work is done by the Qt team.
Qt 5 is shaping up to be a far better framework than GTK+ 3, and they're not forcing people to adopt systemd like the Gnome team is doing (I'm only counting Xorg releases since Wayland is still a couple of years off)

I can't believe I'm going to link to a Sam Varghese story, but the people he was interviewing are sane, so...

No, GNOME does not depend on systemd.

[Vim_User]

No, GNOME does not depend on systemd.

Really? They believe in portability? Install Gnome 3.10 on OpenBSD (or a Linux distro not running systemd) and hibernate the machine. Oh, wait, you can't. Because you need systemd for power-management.

[AdamW]

Really? They believe in portability? Install Gnome 3.10 on OpenBSD (or a Linux distro not running systemd) and hibernate the machine. Oh, wait, you can't. Because you need systemd for power-management.

So...you reply to a couple of GNOME developers explicitly stating that this meme isn't true by...restating the meme. Sigh.

[finalzone]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
See, this is funny to me because Systemd is using it's features to brute-force control...

Honestly, Systemd has more features but I like Upstart as a init system just fine. If I had a choice, I would use Upstart just because Systemd is a freaking bully.
They are pulling in external stuff that has/had NOTHING TO DO WITH SYSTEMD and making systemd a "dependency" for them, forcing anybody that wants to use those projects to use Systemd. That's not the way to get people to use your fking software.

If they want to unify everything under their flag, it would be better if they didn't force people into it. History shows people have a habit of revolting against things they are forced into.

Systemd passed beyond init longtime ago. The staff behind did not force you, it is your own distribution who packaged systemd into a single package.
You can build systemd without these optional files should you wish.

[intellivision]

I can't believe I'm going to link to a Sam Varghese story, but the people he was interviewing are sane, so...

No, GNOME does not depend on systemd.

No, it depends on logind, which now depends on systemd.