Re: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev
Hi!
All these concerns about systemd and systemd vs. upstart have been
addressed in a very good way by the systemd authors.
Also, I would like to point out that "systemd" is the name of a
project with multiple binaries - all the features systemd provides
don't mean that everything is running in one process, in fact, systemd
spawns some helpers on-demand for many actions. (However, the systemd
core does more things than SysVInit, but as long as this code is
tested and works well (and isn't changed that often) I have no
concern)
Also, systemd provides systemd-logind, an excellent way to get rid of
ConsoleKit, which also makes it possible to have real multiseat
support. And managing services using systemd is fantastic! :)
But well, back to udev: I am not personally involved with the udev
packaging, but has someone already talked to the people making the
criticised decisions to explain themselves? I don't think ReadHat
developers want to do any damage to these integral components, so I
hardly think that there were no reasons for a change.
Also, if these issues cannot be solved, would maintaining a small
patchset for udev be an option?
Cheers,
Matthias
2012/11/14 Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi>:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Pretty sure you have this backwards. The decision to implement upstart and
>> use it in Ubuntu was a technical [corrected] one. The decision to NIH a
>> dependency-based init system and then try to strongarm everyone into using
>> it by breaking compatibility was the political one.
>
> The decision to create upstart was a technical decision. However,
> upstart had design flaws, and so systemd was created to do better. This
> was also a technical decision. Do you seriously claim that it would have
> been possible to work within the existing upstart project to bring it to
> the level of current systemd? I find that totally implausible.
>
> Ubuntu still sticking to upstart is a political decision as far as I can
> see; there is no technical reason why it would be a better alternative
> even for their own use than systemd.
>
>
>> BTW, if systemd is a good design, why does it rely so heavily on
>> socket-based activation, which has fundamentally unmaintainable security?
>
> What exactly do you mean by this "fundamentally unmaintainable security"
> claim?
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 1352929546.1952.10.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 1352929546.1952.10.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
>
Reply to: