also sprach Matthias Andree <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2009.08.06.1625 +0200]: > Ubuntu has some interesting approaches, such as Upstart. However, these are > incomplete, underdocumented, and in consequence half-baked. If you care about > the end user experience, you've got to bite the bullet and not only lick it. > Discussing about superimposing schedules and conferences doesn't help at all. > > Providing half-baked solutions is a real nuisance for the end user and the > upstreams: it creates the very inconsistencies that you'd like to avoid, and it > adds one more item to the half-baked items list. Users get deprived of the old > way of doing things (or it's a whole heap more work to do it the old way), the > new way doesn't work yet, and upstreams sometimes see the fallout of such > downstream changes. … and all of the efforts of the LSB to standardise sysvinit so that every vendor can drop init.d scripts into place and expect them to work, are undermined by upstart. Sure, it has compatibility addons, but primarily it conflicts with sysvinit and encourages vendors to provide upstart control files for packages, instead of init.d scripts. I can make Check Point Firewall-1, which is said to only work on RedHat -2 work on Debian in a jiffy. I will not replace sysvinit or /sbin/init on crucial systems with something that hasn't been around enough long enough for people to understand and embrace with all their heart. Don't get me wrong: I long for upstart's functionality. It just seems "half-baked" and counter-productive when viewed in the light of the LSB efforts. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <email@example.com> Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems anyone who says sunshine brings happiness has never danced in the rain.
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)