Re: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev
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"