Debian May Be Leaning Towards Systemd Over Upstart

[eidolon]

i don't know if any of you know this but some debian developers are also systemd developer

Ummm... How about we instead call attention to the fact that 1 or 2 of the people on the TECHNICAL COMMITTEE-- the ones actually making this decision-- are employed by, and therefore paid by, Canonical. Much bigger conflict of interest there if you want to start down that road.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that (i.e. "conflict of interest") was Attent?ter's meaning. I think Attent?ter was implying that some degree of cross-distribution inclusivity actually exists for systemd as a project. Again, I could be wrong.

[Ericg]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that (i.e. "conflict of interest") was Attent?ter's meaning. I think Attent?ter was implying that some degree of cross-distribution inclusivity actually exists for systemd as a project. Again, I could be wrong.

Don't really see a problem with the developers being spread out across the distros. Cross-distro developed project being used by all the distros? Sounds like a dream come true haha

[eidolon]

Don't really see a problem with the developers being spread out across the distros.

I don't think Attent?ter was implying it was a problem. Many of the political arguments against systemd are usually formulated somewhat like this: 'Lennart Poettering is the devil, systemd is of Lennart Pottering, therefore systemd is of the devil'. A variation on this theme would consist of substituting 'Red Hat' for 'Lennart Poettering'. I think Attent?ter was trying to counteract that prejudice. But it isn't for me to speak for Attent?ter, so I'll leave it here.

[Ferdinand]

If SystemD is chosen I hope it comes to Ubuntu too, even though I prefer
Upstart over SystemD. But having only one distro support Upstart would
fragment the community too much.

That is the whole point of Ubuntu right?

[Ericg]

I don't think Attent?ter was implying it was a problem. Many of the political arguments against systemd are usually formulated somewhat like this: 'Lennart Poettering is the devil, systemd is of Lennart Pottering, therefore systemd is of the devil'. A variation on this theme would consist of substituting 'Red Hat' for 'Lennart Poettering'. I think Attent?ter was trying to counteract that prejudice. But it isn't for me to speak for Attent?ter, so I'll leave it here.

Okay, either way, thanks for (trying to) clarifying things Eidolon, right or not at least ya tried and maybe it was just a miscommunication.

[c117152]

You're all working under the assumption the DTC decision on the matter could actually make a difference.
You're wrong. It can't.

Debian doesn't have the resources to maintain an Upstart fork or the volunteers willing to sign Canonical's contributor license agreement.
And that's that.

[Serge]

I don't think Attent?ter was implying it was a problem. Many of the political arguments against systemd are usually formulated somewhat like this: 'Lennart Poettering is the devil, systemd is of Lennart Pottering, therefore systemd is of the devil'. A variation on this theme would consist of substituting 'Red Hat' for 'Lennart Poettering'. I think Attent?ter was trying to counteract that prejudice. But it isn't for me to speak for Attent?ter, so I'll leave it here.

That's how I interpreted Attent?ter's comment as well.

[Serge]

You're all working under the assumption the DTC decision on the matter could actually make a difference.
You're wrong. It can't.

Debian doesn't have the resources to maintain an Upstart fork or the volunteers willing to sign Canonical's contributor license agreement.
And that's that.

What makes you believe that Debian cannot maintain a fork of Upstart on their own? It is a project that records contributions on the packaging side from around 1000 people every release cycle, and that doesn't even count contributions to other aspects of the project. What makes you believe that not enough Debian contributors would be willing to sign Canonical's LCA to avoid forking? With such a large pool of contributors, surely there are all kinds of people with differing views on the LCA, not to mention that many Ubuntu developers double as Debian developers already. And finally, what makes you believe that a middle ground solution, one where those developers willing to sign the LCA submit their patches upstream and those not willing to sign the LCA keep their patches with just Debian's fork, would be unsustainable?

[profoundWHALE]

What makes you believe that Debian cannot maintain a fork of Upstart on their own? It is a project that records contributions on the packaging side from around 1000 people every release cycle, and that doesn't even count contributions to other aspects of the project. What makes you believe that not enough Debian contributors would be willing to sign Canonical's LCA to avoid forking? With such a large pool of contributors, surely there are all kinds of people with differing views on the LCA, not to mention that many Ubuntu developers double as Debian developers already. And finally, what makes you believe that a middle ground solution, one where those developers willing to sign the LCA submit their patches upstream and those not willing to sign the LCA keep their patches with just Debian's fork, would be unsustainable?

The point is that it wouldn't be worth it for THEM.

[finalzone]

Add the news that dbus will eventually be moved to the kernel. This goes against the UNIX philosiphy that at its base is a collection of small tools specialized in doing ONE thing well.

From Neil Brown himself, UNIX philosophy is dead long time ago.