Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion
- From: David Balch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:13:26 +0000
- Message-id: <CALhO_qwn9AyGn=hfyPc9sqkmNb_ac0_UCP1XKSN0Ve8ktqyDEg@mail.gmail.com>
(Long time listener, first time caller - so apologies if I'm doing this wrong.)
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion"):
>3.1. Ecosystem Reality Check
> Therefore, I believe the burden of proof is on upstart to show that it is
> a clearly superior init system along some axis, whether that be
> functionality or portability or flexibility or maintainability, to warrant
> going to the effort of disassembling a part of the systemd ecosystem and
> swapping in our own component.
I've been following this discussion pretty closely, but I don't think
I've seen any substantive response to this point.
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
> * upstart is simpler than systemd (which leads to fewer bugs, etc.)
> * upstart integration fits better into a daemon source code
> * upstart is easier to package for than systemd
> * upstart's community is much better to work with
> * upstart's remaining disadvantages are readily fixable SMOP
> * upstart is therefore ready for adoption in jessie
(non-upstart points removed)
These all seem to be matters of opinion, contested by others on the
list - and hence don't clearly demonstrate Upstart's superiority.
Is there some significant Upstart advantage that I've missed?