Tweet
Originally posted by caligula
View Post
-
None of those things would have any use of being dependent on systemd, there is no functionality usable to them from what I can tell. Systemd will solely be an init daemon / process manager to them. Maybe except OpenMosix and FreeNX, because I don't know what they are. OpenSSH will certainly not, since it's primarily an OpenBSD project. -
From a technical stand-point, Upstart is better behaved (please correct me if I'm wrong). But systemd starting everything willy nilly has never made sense to me. That's how Windows works. Windows takes forever to load the desktop. Ubuntu (upstart) is very fast boot with no delay.
The bottom line has always seemed to me that Upstart is the better choice, but Canonical ruined it with their draconian license. Why does Canonical not make open-source stuff freely available like the rest of the community?
It's a damn shame Upstart is no longer going to be used because I've always felt it's the better choice from a technical view. License wise is different. Anybody else ever get the feeling that Canonical holds Ubuntu back?Comment
-
Here is the link showing how upstart is fundamentaly broken with several major unfixed bugs and badly misbehaves https://lwn.net/Articles/582585/Originally posted by rgap View Post
You forgot Canonical version of upstart are specifically optimized for Ubuntu only where other distributions can't even access to these modifications without signing Canonical Clause Licensing Agreement. In addition, Canonical themselves hardly uses upstart to its full potentially by still relying on the good old scripts from sysv int.
It is clear you haven't fully used systemd to its potential as users specially from Arch, Gentoo have reported a much quicker boot which is only the side effect of agressive parallelization of boot process. Also look how some users managed to reduce the time to less than 3 seconds using Fedora:
It is too late for upstart to come back because systemd is what upstart should be, already passed beyond init to be an umbrella project and has tremendous backing not only from distributions but also from embedded and other industries like GENIVI. The world has spoken, upstart is declared dead.Comment
-
Willy-nilly starting of stuff? Meaning what exactly? The ONLY thing I can think of that you mean is the socket activation stuff (Stuff gets started when its needed) but sockets aren't just automatically on. There's 2 unit files sshd.service and sshd.socket, if you enable sshd.service then you're saying "Load the ssh daemon at all times, needed or not." If you enable sshd.socket file then you are saying "Monitor port 22 and if anything tries to connect via it only then start the ssh daemon. When the last ssh connection closes, stop the daemon and go back to stand-by"Originally posted by rgap View Post
As far as Upstart being "better behaved" thats pretty much a non-issue o.O Both are supposed to respect cgroups, I don't know if Upstart supports resource quotas but systemd does. Systemd unit files can tell systemd that if the service doesnt exit cleanly (crashes) that it should try to restart the daemon. Systemd has strict dependency and event chains, Upstart is supposed to but as far as I know thats been broken for a long time: https://lwn.net/Articles/582585/
My laptop with Fedora 20 on an SSD can go from cold-boot to desktop in about 5 seconds, I don't know what Upstart is, but Windows is closer to 15seconds or so. So its definitely not an issue of systemd becoming slow like windows.
If you could clarify your "Thats how Windows works." "Systemd loads things willy-nilly" and "Upstart behaves better" comments itd be much appreciated.All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.Comment
-
What in the world does your comment have to do with xeekei's post that you quoted? He's talking about SteamOS, not Steam. You do know the difference, right? Nobody said anything about integrating any of those programs with systemd.Originally posted by caligula View PostComment
-
Oh! Yeah, I was very confused by his comment, but I tried to answer him as best as I could. :P But now I see that he must've thought I meant the Steam client.Originally posted by Scimmia View PostComment
-
Yeah, the assumption that SteamOS will use systemd seems completely uncontroversial to me. It already uses the default Debian init system, and it's not service-heavy enough to warrant customizing its init system, so obviously it would continue to use the default init system when systemd becomes the default.
Maybe the OP thought SteamOS was based off of Ubuntu?Comment
-
No, I knew that Debian have bigger impact than Ubuntu on SteamOS. I just meant that if Debian can get Ubuntu to use systemd, it certainly will get SteamOS to use it too. Even if Valve might've preferred something else.Originally posted by Skrapion View PostComment
-
Admittedly, part of me was hoping that Ubuntu would continue to use Upstart so that Mint would have an excuse to give LMDE more love.
But as somebody who uses Ubuntu Server Edition, I'm glad they switched. One of Ubuntu's strengths was that they had a better init system (Upstart vs SysVInit) and if that changed (Upstart vs systemd), I likely would have eventually switched to Debian.Comment
-
eventus mirabilis
Comment
Comment