Upstart Now Available In Debian Unstable

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Upstart Now Available In Debian Unstable

Steve Langasek of Canonical has pushed their latest Upstart init daemon into Debian unstable. Debian GNU/Linux can now handle either SysVinit, systemd, and Upstart to handle a head-to-head system booting battle...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIzNjk

[89c51]

The interesting bit about Upstart is that Canonical seems to be sticking to it and also -according to LP G+- they want to use it in the user session.

[BO$$]

Canonical should really push for adoption of Upstart in order to get mindshare and make people change to it instead of that systemd. Canonical really is the lesser evil in this case.

[DeepDayze]

Canonical should really push for adoption of Upstart in order to get mindshare and make people change to it instead of that systemd. Canonical really is the lesser evil in this case.

They can do that by providing an unbiased explanation how Upstart works and how it can manage system boot tasks better. Having an unbiased set of benchmarks can also help and not to mention that having clear and complete documentation of how to configure Upstart.

Mucking around with init systems can be tedious and if not done right it can make system unstable or even unbootable

[Bernard Swiss]

The interesting bit about Upstart is that Canonical seems to be sticking to it and also -according to LP G+- they want to use it in the user session.

I thought the interesting thing about Upstart was that it was something Ubuntu got right.

- - - -
I'm probably speaking beyond my competence, here, but here goes:

Upstart is arguably an improvement on SysV init; it's simple, straight-forward, and human-readable/comprehensible, like Unix-y software should be whenever possible.

Upstart isn't much more complicated than SysV init, and offers some clear benefits. It's right dead-centre in line with the "Unix philosophy" of software and operating system design.

On the other hand: Systemd may be all kinds of "cool"; but its arguably an inherently and needlessly obfuscating, complicating approach -- that imposes the same drawbacks on all too many other tasks, bits of software and other files that it touches, and even requires new tools to deal with the problems it creates. It's a very "MS Windows" way of doing things, and its not clear that the benefits actually outweigh the drawbacks. Some would even describe it as a solution looking for a problem.

[funkSTAR]

Systemd may be all kinds of "cool"; but its arguably an inherently and needlessly obfuscating, complicating approach -- that imposes the same drawbacks on all too many other tasks, bits of software and other files that it touches, and even requires new tools to deal with the problems it creates. It's a very "MS Windows" way of doing things, and its not clear that the benefits actually outweigh the drawbacks. Some would even describe it as a solution looking for a problem.

You really should go read what the systemd commumity is doing. They are making boot so much simpler and tje truth is they are inspired by other unixy "friends" from Apple, not MS. The basic idea is spawnig as few processes as possible and do socket activation. Is is simple and clean, and as a side effect; damn fast! Thats for init.

The rest is about features which will keep linux(thus its sponsors) relevant tomorrow. Linux NEEDS flawless session management, ressource control better than nice-levels, a metadata based logging which cant be tampered by intruders and so on.

This what systemd is about. Clean boot, and a bootload of future features. Shopping init and session systems is a different thing to teenagers shopping shoes. You cant just follow your feelings. You need to do whatd right. Systemd doesnt exclude others by CA, it has a growing community and is getting adopted in fast pace. Upstart is just a skunkwork.

[LightBit]

You really should go read what the systemd commumity is doing. They are making boot so much simpler and tje truth is they are inspired by other unixy "friends" from Apple, not MS. The basic idea is spawnig as few processes as possible and do socket activation. Is is simple and clean, and as a side effect; damn fast! Thats for init.

Apple was inspired by MS, it even uses CamelCase. Unix-like OS-es never had problem spawning many processes and socket activation doesn't belong to init. If it's so simple, reimplement it in one month or even better make it POSIX.

[funkSTAR]

Unix-like OS-es never had problem spawning many processes and socket activation doesn't belong to init. If it's so simple, reimplement it in one month or even better make it POSIX.

Wow. First systemd is bashed for being too complex, and now "UNIX" is immune to any complexity. This keeps getting better and better. What makes "UNIX" magic? Nothing. It is a now-dead 70s OS implementation(for a reason)!

One of the reasons Linux is getting its ass kicked is the abysmal kernel support for stuff that desktop user cares about; A kernel layer and init that just dont fuck up. The only way to keep it managable is keeping it fucking simple and enable a sane level of debugging. Systemd does that. There is no need to spawn shit about UNIX or POSIX compliance. users dont care.

[peppepz]

I'm probably speaking beyond my competence, here, but here goes:

I'm also incompetent, but nevertheless I've been successfully managing my own LFS installation since 1999, and I wholeheartedly agree to every word that you've said.

Upstart developers not having a messianic stance to have everyone in the world use their product is also a plus.

[Akka]

The interesting bit about Upstart is that Canonical seems to be sticking to it and also -according to LP G+- they want to use it in the user session.

How do this differ from systemd --user? I use that to control my user daemons.