openSUSE switched to systemd from sysvinit, not from upstart.
Printable View
openSUSE switched to systemd from sysvinit, not from upstart.
What is the difference between systemd and upstart?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of each?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenRC will give you an overview.
Upstart is older and is pretty much Ubuntu-only now.
SystemD is RedHat's, and it's been adopted by several major distributions, including OpenSUSE. It is aggressively Linux-only, which is why Debian refuses to move over.
OpenRC is Gentoo's own solution.
It's a bit of a mess now. Some new RedHat work is heavily based on SystemD (like the new multi-seat work), and with RedHat's backing, it is the favourite right now. Because of some design decisions, some major distributions like Debian and Gentoo are likely to stay away. Upstart is in Ubuntu hands now, which is not comparable to being backed by RedHat and OpenSuse, so probably a dead end. Gentoo doesn't have enough sway to push their (actually quite decent) solution so it will likely remain Gentoo-only.
So instead of unification, we have more fragmentation.
Upstart is older than systemd.Quote:
Originally Posted by siride
Why doesn't the distributions use launchd instead of systemd and Upstart?
One reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd...tside_Mac_OS_XQuote:
Originally Posted by uid313
Also why would they?
They could also simply use BSD init.:rolleyes:
Yeah, depending on Apple to write your init system is the best idea ever.
Ordering doesn't matter. If a better solution comes along, and you refuse to use it because you like your pet solution, then it's still NIH. That may or may not be what's going on here, but it wouldn't surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBit
Quote:
Originally Posted by siride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_inv...e#In_computingQuote:
In programming, it is also common to refer to the NIH Syndrome as the tendency towards reinventing the wheel (reimplementing something that is already available) based on the belief that in-house developments are inherently better suited, more secure or more controlled than existing implementations.
Why would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBit
It seems Apple successfully deployed it. So its kinda proven.
Why would they not?
I don't know. Is there anything bad about it?
Reason not to use it was it was ASPL, now it is Apache License, so is there any reason not to use it or re-consider it?
They got money to pour into launchd, and they will keep on developing launchd for a while probably. If they don't, the community can develop it since its free open source software.Quote:
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
Any reason not to use launchd?