Re: On init in Debian
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi> [2012-03-23 19:44]:
> > IMO your [Steve Langasek's] upstart advocacy and anti-systemd FUD
> > crosses the line between having your own opinions and having your
> > own facts.
>
> There was neither FUD nor advocacy in Steves mail and no hostile
> attitude towards systemd.
IMO calling comments like "The current [bad] state of upstart in Debian
is a reflection of the upstart maintainers' respect for Debian and
desire to not destabilize the distribution" advocacy is perfectly
accurate. Especially when systemd in Debian works much better, without
causing such "destabilization".
Note that my comment about his FUD posting was not based only on the
mail I was replying to. I've already commented on false claims he's made
earlier:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg00935.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg01177.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg01182.html
> In contrast to your systemd advocacy as the new default init Steve
> outlined the necessary changes to provide upstart as an alternative to
He posted some actual information and some quite dubious claims. My
posts about systemd have been more objective.
> The RHEL 6 uses upstart [1] and while it is true that Fedora is using
> systemd I could not find any evidence that RHEL intends to change any
> time soon.
I think the evidence I described in my mail is quite significant.
Whether the switch actually happens "soon" is another question; but
that's due to RHEL being maintained in a very conservative manner. Note
that Steve wrote "no indication", and without any qualification such as
"soon". Would you really honestly say there's "no indication" of RHEL
switching away from upstart?
Reply to: