On 01/19/11 14:03, Yaro Kasear wrote:
And comments about Ubuntu and their competence are entirely relevant to this discussion, as Upstart is entirely their creation. Would you rather I talk about people who had nothing to do with its code? The Ubuntu devs are behind Upstart, they're not that great at what they do when it comes to the actual system side of Ubuntu. Therefore why should we consider Upstart an improvement.
Argument ad hominem. We can be precise; it's more obviously rude that way. Scott James Remnant wrote Upstart. I can't speak for Ubuntu, but I've seen Remnant presenting and he seemed quite competent. Software is hard; Upstart was the first attempt at changing 'init' in decades, so there was little experiential knowledge of Linux 'init' development when it started in 2006. In fact, in the process of writing Upstart, Remnant and his co-workers made Ubuntu boot faster largely by working with Xorg and Linux kernel developers. There are now upstream changes due to the risk Ubuntu took with Upstart. *Arch* therefore now boots faster because of Remnant. He's a pretty smart guy who knows what he's doing even if some of us disagree with what he's doing; I was at his presentation "How We Made Ubuntu Boot Faster" http://events.linuxfoundation.org/linuxcon2010/remnant That is equally no reason to switch to Upstart. We can be grateful to Remnant and choose the best (technically & socially) solution *for Arch* *in 2011*. Of course he's enthusiastic about Upstart but I'm sure he wouldn't mind. (I don't pretend to know which solution this is, though it sounds like Arch's current init system, or systemd, are likely to be default in the next year or two.) After writing the above, I checked my assumptions and Google found me Remnant's entirely reasonable blog post about systemd. http://netsplit.com/2010/04/30/on-systemd/ -Isaac