On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Yaro Kasear <yaro@marupa.net> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:53:44 pm C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Yaro Kasear <yaro@marupa.net> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 04:29:02 am Laurent Carlier wrote:
Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit :
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote:
If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast provide them with something to test and with arguments, cause you gave none...
And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)
In my opinion: "Ubuntu uses it" is a very strong reason NOT to use Upstart.
you are trolling? comments related to Ubuntu or their competence are wholly unrelated and highly irrelevant.
i would guess that many of Arch's users began with Ubuntu, and then decided they were too l33t and wanted to try something more bare metal (probably to learn/grow); myself included.
please try to restrict information output to quality discussion of sysvinit, upstart, systemd, or other init solutions and their merits.
C Anthony
No, I'm not trolling. I don't see how my statement is really all that different than all the other one-line "god, I hope not" responses in this thread. I just gave my reasons, that's the only difference between my post and theirs.
your right, it isn't any different; it's equally pointless.
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.
It was entirely about the quality of Upstart as it was about the quality of Upstart's developers. And any programmer worth his salt could tell you that if you suck at programming or even just design, your software is going to suck, too.
so what if they wrote it... Ubuntu has contributed to the community in many ways, please respect them. you are making a false connection. Upstart != Ubuntu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies [ from my previous links (Lennart) ] "To begin with, let me emphasize that I actually like the code of Upstart, it is very well commented and easy to follow. It's certainly something other projects should learn from (including my own). That being said, I can't say I agree with the general approach of Upstart."
Arch's current init system is perfectly fine, it's simple, easy to work with, flexible, and its fast enough.
please see my previous post because sysvinit provides nothing. you are talking about bash.
I can EASILY set up entirely new bootlevels with SysV on Arch (I did it with XBMC and I bet you my next lunch Upstart can't do it.), something Upstart goes out of its way to avoid.
run levels are 99% pointless constructs. even Arch barely cares about them.
Don't crappify Arch just because you miss Ubuntu or think Arch should jump on some misguided bandwagon that takes Linux ass-backwards.
please actually _read_ my posts and the links provided... then simmer down. i am full-force behind Systemd for several reasons i clearly outlined, not Upstart, though i commend Upstart for the initiative. please contribute quality information or leave the conversation to the professional developers/administrators among use, not those who can't do anything but bang out a POS 17 line bash script. C Anthony