On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > GRs should be used for societal and policy[*] decisions. Using GRs for > *technical* decision is stupid. Is it for sure that this (and I guess it's mostly about upstart vs. systemd is *only* a technical question? - Apparently both are much more capable than sysvinit - Apparently you can do most things of a "modern" init system with both Sure there are many detailed questions like e.g. systemd doing some (IMHO useless integrity protection on logs, which AFAIK upstrart hasn't anything similar)... but that's IMHO rather a matter of taste. IMHO there is quite some big political point in the whole question, namely which of the both fractions one wants to support. - Canonical/*buntu - RedHat and (what seems to be) the rest of the world It's also a question wheter Debian will at least politically be tied even more to Canonical/*buntu - and I guess no one can claim that there wouldn't be sucht ties (already by having many Canonical workers being DDs,too). I wouldn't see many technical arguments that speak strongly really in favour of one or the other, perhaps: - Against systemd speaks that it's uncertain on whether there will be a solution in the end for the non-Linux UNIX flavours - which I think Debian should support for ethical and philosophical reasons. Admittedly I have no idea how the situation is there wrt upstart. - For systemd speaks, that it seems most of the rest of the world is focusing on it (many kernel developers, the wayland guys, etc.). Does upstart receive the same "attention" here? Could that mean much effort or even problems for Debian in the end, if it decides for upstream? Cheers, Chris.  And note that I neither said these ties would be good nor bad.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature