Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian Still Debating Systemd vs. Upstart Init System

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

  • #11
    If Debian refuses systemd, there is no point for me to install it.

    If they adapt Upstart, they have to sign Canonical's CLA, if they want to change it even bit. This means any Debian works on that matter go into whatever license Canonical sees fit. Half the worry - they break a lot of things in ecosystem and will generate a lot of bugs, which they can't upstream to Linux, udev, systemd etc.

    Finally, I don't see any reason for BSD and Hurd kernel support, that they downgrade and deviate from much more advanced technologies.
    They can create special packages in case these kernels are in use and work it this way. I assume when and if BSD work out the launchd port, then they also will deviate from SystemV, and especially from Upstart.

    Time to show who Debian is really for. For following and bending over, or for keeping in touch with most modern DFSG-compatible kernel that powered them up till now.

    Comment


    • #12
      I could give a rat's ass what Canonical/Ubuntu is pushing. What should override the choice is the ease of integration into KDE and GNOME and lesser known DEs.

      KDE and obviously GNOME already support systemd, in a mature state.

      Russ Allbery of the Debian technical committee, meanwhile, came out yesterday. Allbery is in favor of systemd over Upstart. His response was the opposite of Jackson's. He feels that Upstart trails systemd in features, they should go with systemd so Debian developers can focus on new issues rather than re-doing component integration that developers have already done for systemd, and that it's a "clear choice" going with systemd even though it faces portability issues with non-Linux platforms.
      +1 for Allbery's position. Debian is already nearly 2 revisions behind GNOME being fully ready in Experimental never mind Unstable, and to deal with Upstart matching being on equal footing when the project doesn't have enough people to manage the packages they support, in any remotely timely manner, is just asinine.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by brosis View Post
        If Debian refuses systemd, there is no point for me to install it.

        If they adapt Upstart, they have to sign Canonical's CLA, if they want to change it even bit. This means any Debian works on that matter go into whatever license Canonical sees fit. Half the worry - they break a lot of things in ecosystem and will generate a lot of bugs, which they can't upstream to Linux, udev, systemd etc.

        Finally, I don't see any reason for BSD and Hurd kernel support, that they downgrade and deviate from much more advanced technologies.
        They can create special packages in case these kernels are in use and work it this way. I assume when and if BSD work out the launchd port, then they also will deviate from SystemV, and especially from Upstart.

        Time to show who Debian is really for. For following and bending over, or for keeping in touch with most modern DFSG-compatible kernel that powered them up till now.
        You had me until you whined about the FreeBSD/Hurd ports.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Saist View Post
          Part of me wonders how this is even a discussion.

          One technology at play is compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

          The other does not: http://www.canonical.com/contributors

          That's the end of the discussion. Period. Upstart isn't even an option for Debian to consider on any level.
          Agreed.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by brosis View Post
            If they adapt Upstart, they have to sign Canonical's CLA, if they want to change it even bit. This means any Debian works on that matter go into whatever license Canonical sees fit
            That is certainly overstating the concerns here. Upstart patches can be maintained downstream by Debian and they already have several patches where the patch writer may not sign the CLA. So yes, there is a burden of a fork to maintain if they want to deviate further but for an integral component, they should be willing to do so if systemd is really that unacceptable to them.

            With two Canonical employees in the Debian Technical Committee and Ian (Ex-Canonical employee), there are currently atleast three votes in favor of upstart. Russ is favoring systemd but other members haven't really participated in the discussions much if at all. We will have to hear from them more to understand their perspectives as well.

            Comment


            • #16
              IMHO, it'd be good if Debian adopts Upstart. If they don't Upstart might evolve into something very Ubuntu-specific and therefore might not work on other distros. We still need a simpler init system for some users who want to customize their linux installation, but not to dig as deep into it as they'd need for systemd.

              Anyway that doesn't mean systemd for Debian isn't better.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
                You had me until you whined about the FreeBSD/Hurd ports.
                In that case, reread what I wrote. I was not whining, BSD/Hurd/%anything is used very often to address "compatibility" concerns.
                "Compatibility" for subsystems, that are under 1% of use compared to main kernel, and that have to dictate the gameplay, forcing many many disadvantages including:
                - overhead
                - bugs
                - Debian-only bugs
                - Debian-only patches
                - feature/functionality downgrade
                - actuality downgrade
                - license problems
                - inconsistency with upstream

                Debian will have more to implement, more to fix(alone), more to break, slower to go. For what? For 1%?

                Besides, currently BSD is trying out launchd.... This will now deviate even more.
                Hurd is same - it is never in position to oppress anything, if its incompatible, separate it and patch/feature-clone it to compatibility. Not backwards.
                Debian is not a woman - it should not try to please everyone, who are in disagreement due to own features, because this way it will just weaken everyone.
                Debian should do it as man and give everyone conflicting own playroom, which should be withdrawn as they become unneeded. Additionally, this way Debian will work on interesting things, such as making different architectures play together, instead of cuting/patching them all into usability subconsciousness.

                My view is simple and basic - follow the most asked.
                If least asked conflicts with most asked - do not mix them, but patch the least asked.
                If least asked tends to overrun most asked - exchange them and their incompatible subsystems.

                Comment


                • #18
                  I think systemd is (currently) technically better than Upstart (and it's what I use personally) - but it would be nice to have another well-supported modern init system to prevent systemd from becoming an unavoidable, monolithic* dependency.

                  *I know systemd isn't architecturally monolithic, and it's possible to omit unwanted components, but as the developers aren't willing to maintain stable interfaces between said components very little of it is of use except as part of the greater structure - see the difficulties with using logind etc. with Upstart, where the devs explicitely dislike its use apart from core systemd.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by busukxuan View Post
                    IMHO, it'd be good if Debian adopts Upstart. If they don't Upstart might evolve into something very Ubuntu-specific and therefore might not work on other distros. We still need a simpler init system for some users who want to customize their linux installation, but not to dig as deep into it as they'd need for systemd.

                    Anyway that doesn't mean systemd for Debian isn't better.
                    No we don't and no the "simplicity" your mentioned is long gone (for good) and no, it was Upstart who continued to evolve in the corner per design.
                    The only ones who adapted it are Ubuntu and ChromeOS + Maemo, with later doing it only due to its age when there was BSD/Sysv/Upstart, but no systemd/launchd.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      [Offtopic]
                      Originally posted by brosis View Post
                      Debian is not a woman - it should not try to please everyone
                      Debian should do it as man and give everyone conflicting own playroom
                      No offense, but that was kinda sexist.
                      [/Offtopic]

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X