Re: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system
Christoph Anton Mitterer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
systemd doing more is quite relevant for this decision as far as I
understand the discussion: unlike upstart, systemd is not just an init
replacement, but offers additional services like journald or logind.
These provide useful functionality and parts of them would be needed
even when using upstart (logind was mentioned). So deciding for upstart
means providing these services via some other means, such as writing a
replacement, forking an old version of systemd's logind, or convincing
systemd upstream to provide a logind that works together with upstart.
I am not sure how much work this will be, esp. should additional modules
be required later.
Also the tight integration into systemd allows to provide some really
nice features. From trying out systemd for a bit, I found "systemctl
status" quite impressive. I don't know if upstart has something
For just the init part, I'm not sure how large the differences between
the systems are. Systemd seems to provide more features, upstart tries
to be small and simple.