Posted by statmonkey at the VSIDO forums in the systemd vs. Upstart thread.
I always hope that logic and rationality prevail but the problem with sense is that it is anything but common – if you want proof read that whole Ian Jackson post. He comes off to me like a spurned female rather than an adult making a professional decision.
In the post you linked to I was struck by these paragraphs:
One of the points that I think may have been obscured in the discussion,
but which is important to highlight, is that basically all parties have
agreed that Debian will adopt large portions of systemd. systemd is an
umbrella project that includes multiple components, some more significant
than others. Most of those components are clearly superior to anything we
have available now on Linux platforms and will be used in the distribution
In other words, this debate is not actually about systemd vs. upstart in
the most obvious sense. Rather, the question, assuming one has narrowed
the choices to those two contenders, is between adopting all the major
components of systemd including the init system, or adopting most of the
major components of systemd but replacing the init system with upstart.
Either way, we’ll be running udev, logind, some read more
The below post, as well as the one prior, was posted (by me) at the VSIDO forums on a thread there debating the direction Debian should go with a new init system. (I’ve made that a direct link to the thread in question) As this vote gets nearer, it is time for some alarm in the Linux community, and everyone should in some way try to make their voice heard. This is my way. It isn’t meant to offend anyone, truly. This is a serious issue that is about to happen and Debian should know how we feel about it.
Wow. What can I say that statmonkey hasn’t? Not much if anything at all…
At around the 40 minute mark in the first video posted above, when Steve Langasek starts in with the “what’s up with Debian and licensing”, I definitely threw in the towel on Upstart. Not that I hadn’t already, but when Canonical starts telling dev’s to send in their work, and don’t bother signing the CLA, and see what happens, that was it for me. I had read in a couple of different places on the net where some of Ian’s (Ian Jackson, former Canonical/Ubuntu dev) posts sounded like he was going to go for Upstart. I have to say after watching the above, that I don’t think you can read more
OK, my .00002 cents worth. (sorry for the lengthyness of this post, it touched a nerve maybe or something close)
First, what is the problem with sysvinit? OK, so systemd will do a complete userspace boot-up in 900ms. So what? Having personally tried systemd with VSIDO, I saw no ‘great’ benefits. OTOH, I have never tried Upstart. (does using Upstart mean using Mir/Unity?)
Second, when you mention Upstart, all that I can think of is “we’re Shuttleworth’d”…
And third, why do we have to have one, or the other? There are multiple choices now. (As Digit so aptly mentions above)
Back to boot speeds, I read one posters comment, (on one of the other forums) and I’m paraphrasing here, if my system takes 3 to 5 minutes to boot, but once booted it remains solid and has no issues, then I don’t care. Personally I think that the boot speeds that most people are talking about these days have more to do, generically, with UEFI than systemd. (yes, I know systemd drastically can reduce boot times, and have seen that with my own eyes) But, UEFI passes the boot off from the BIOS (read; slow) and directly to hardware, which, if your using an SSD, can seem instantaneous. So, in a server environment, IMO, boot speeds tend to be irrelevant. On a desktop (laptop) this becomes even more irrelevant. (unless of course, your James Bond, the earth is getting ready to explode, and you have to save the read more