News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ian Jackson Resigns from Debian Technical Committee by zaphar on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @12:09PM (#8631182)
Thanks for the detailed response. It makes a certain amount of sense.

    The right course of action would be "meh, don't like
    systemd, I'll build a better offering." Talk is cheap,
    code is what counts.
This statement seems to ignore Upstart though. Which is again from a very cursory examination exactly that. A better and more modular init without some of the complaints of systemd and yet is not gaining the mind share.

Why isn't it considered a viable alternative?

Re:Ian Jackson Resigns from Debian Technical Committee by lomnakkus on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @01:36PM (#8631736)
Upstart's event-based model was semi-broken and AFAIR the original author admitted as much. (I believe he posted a message stating this to a maining list, but I cannot find it ATM.)

Exposing the event model directly to the jobs also made reasoning about the current system state (which is what actually matters, not how we got there) tended to make upstart jobs a lot more complicated than necessary. (This is from memory, it's been ages since I actually looked at upstart jobs.)

Re:Ian Jackson Resigns from Debian Technical Committee by the_why_of_y on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @02:43PM (#8632155)
Here are some specific examples:

read comments #6 and #8 on this 5 year old unfixed bug and weep: https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/447654

in comment #7 on this (unfixed) bug Scott says it could be solved by having upstart use cgroups instead of ptrace to track processes: https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/406397

Re:Ian Jackson Resigns from Debian Technical Committee by Xylakant on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @12:13PM (#8631211)
Well, ubuntu used upstart and moved away, redhat/centos the same (though the centos 6.5 version of upstart was horribly outdated and crappy in terms of features). I actually kinda liked upstart, but I prefer systemd.