SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
elias writes:
"A very public and sometimes acrimonious dispute in the Debian ecosystem about upstart versus systemd has been settled in favour of systemd. Some go as far as to brand it a new era after the Linux civil war [Beware popups].
We also had an asksoylentnews question on what the fuzz was all about. But what can upstart contribute to systemd now the war is over, or will it simply be a technology that we remember fondly, but do not see any more in a few years time?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ubuntu Concedes Defeat in Upstart vs Systemd
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.
-- Ayn Rand
(Score: 2) by forsythe on Wednesday March 19 2014, @12:45AM
I must agree. Assuming that Systemd's target userbase is enterprise, however, raises the question of why Systemd is pushing for adoption among user-focused distros (Arch, Debian, etc). Debian doesn't ship SELinux by default, why do they ship Systemd by default? I can see RHEL doing so, but why Debian?
I should also bring up the following to commentaries on Systemd:
http://ewontfix.com/14/ [ewontfix.com]
http://ewontfix.com/15/ [ewontfix.com]
They are mostly technical, but the author raises the point that, based on the technical design of Systemd, it's attempting to be an octopus that handles everything and is required by everything: the only real way for an application to get a certain type of behavior out of Systemd (that it probably wants) is to use Systemd's API, which ties the entire daemon to Systemd, rather than an init-system-agnostic daemon with a specific 20-line shell script wrapper.
That pervasiveness doesn't fit with a profile of Systemd as a niche product.