On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 09:03:51PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Feb 21, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> Debian has a history for providing a variety of packages with similar > >> functionality and leave the choice up to the user. > >> However, with systemd at the horizon, I don't see a need in supporting it > >> either. Ubuntu will probably make the switch in near future as well. > > I don't know what gives you that impression. > From my impression, systemd seems way more functional and well-designed > than upstart. It is - more or less - a clone of Apple's launchd with its > socket-based activation and the capability to replace whole init bash > scripts with internal code. Yes, I don't know what gives you the impression that Ubuntu agrees with this assessment and is likely to switch. :) What do you know of the upstart design that makes you think systemd's design is better? The above could be a paraphrase of Lennart's blog, for all it says about the upstart design. The meme that systemd is better than upstart because it doesn't depend on a shell is poppycock. No one has done any benchmarking to support the claim that /bin/sh is a bottleneck for upstart (particularly not on Debian or Ubuntu, where /bin/sh is dash, not bash); OTOH, there are plenty of examples of how the limited use of upstart's built-in support for shell scripts makes for much more maintainable - and locally-modifiable - startup behavior than if this were all implemented in C. > There is a discussion about it here [1]. > [1] > http://undacuvabrutha.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/why-ubuntu-should-continue-with-upstart-for-11-10/ Not sure why you think the comments on a blog post by a self-selected group of users say anything about what Ubuntu is going to do. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
