Bug#727708: init system thoughts
Colin Watson <email@example.com> writes:
> Reservations with systemd
> Basically, systemd would be more compelling to me if it tried to do
> less. I don't expect to persuade systemd advocates of this, as I think
> it amounts to different basic views of the world, but the basic approach
> here is probably the single biggest factor influencing my position.
On the other hand even when using upstart as an init replacement, we'll
continue to use large chunks of systemd (logind, other dbus
services). I personally think "less is more" would only be a convincing
argument if we actually would not need the aditional features.
I also have one question: your mail doesn't mention the integration
problems with logind into a system that uses upstart and not systemd as
init. Do you think this will not be an issue? Given it means ongoing
work instead of a one-time investment, this is one of my main gripes
with upstart. I feel that minor technical differences between the init
replacements are not work committing to long-time maintaince of a
systemd-logind branch that works outside of systemd. There are more
interesting areas we can invest our resources into.
Note that this might also include session management functions in the
future. As you mentioned yourself in , DEs are looking into using
advanced session supervision. So far both kwin and GNOME seem to target
systemd for this. So this would be another area that we would need to
invest resources into to maintain an upstart replacement.