On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 13:29, Junior <jeezusjr@gmail.com> wrote:

I would also love to see this, but I can imagine the task is pretty hefty. In any case, great jobs guys! I love arch!

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Madhur Ahuja <ahuja.madhur@gmail.com>wrote:

...

Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.

Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?

http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Thanks, Madhur

Can you please try systemd first (default in Fedora 15 rawhide)? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd Regards. Keshav

Hi Karol, On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de> wrote:

Although a complete integration into Arch seems to be unlikely

Anything in particular you have in mind? We are working towards complete backwards compatibility with initscripts, and we are more or less there (modulo unknown bugs).

I think it would be great if the installation of systemd would be even more easy

Any suggestions about what might make the installation easier? At the moment you have to install some packages from AUR and add a line to your GRUB file. Cheers, Tom

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de> wrote:

Am 20.01.2011 14:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:>

...

Anything in particular you have in mind? We are working towards complete backwards compatibility with initscripts, and we are more or less there (modulo unknown bugs).

First of all I was talking about systemd as the default init system within Arch.

I see. I misunderstood.

...

Any suggestions about what might make the installation easier? At the moment you have to install some packages from AUR and add a line to your GRUB file.

I appreciate your work (and anyone who has helped you out a bit), but to be honest its not the way I would think of an ideal solution :(. Right now you have to install a few packages from AUR and run it in parallel with sysvinit. I don't even know if there is a way to remove sysvinit, but I would guess this wouldn't be easy.

At the moment removing sysvinit is not a goal. We are happy to see them peacefully co-exist. I expect this will continue being our goal as long as sysvinit is the default on Arch.

Furthermore units are provided by a single package. I don't think thats a good way, as I get a whole bunch of units I actually don't need.

This is a temporary solution until packages ship unit files upstream. I agree it is not ideal, but it is a simple solution for the time being (without much of a drawback, the unused unit files are not even parsed).

All in all, its relatively easy to install systemd, because of the work you and others have done, but it doesn't follow the KISS principle at all.

I agree that the temporary packaging solutions are not ideal, but it's the best we can do in the short run. However, none of these problems are fundamental, and if/when systemd is in widespread use, these problems will disappear.

I guess, to make it really affordable it must be declared as official, so the packages itself contain the units, replacing the sysvinit.

At the moment the intention is just to allow people to test systemd, so this would be quite premature. Thanks for your comments. Cheers, Tom

Karol Babioch (2011-01-21 13:13):

Am 20.01.2011 14:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:>

...

Any suggestions about what might make the installation easier? At the moment you have to install some packages from AUR and add a line to your GRUB file.

I appreciate your work (and anyone who has helped you out a bit), but to be honest its not the way I would think of an ideal solution :(. Right now you have to install a few packages from AUR and run it in parallel with sysvinit. I don't even know if there is a way to remove sysvinit, but I would guess this wouldn't be easy.

It is quite simple: 1. Ensure that you know how to boot without /sbin/init 2. Run pacman -R sysvinit initscripts I have done this one year ago and am still alive.

Furthermore units are provided by a single package. I don't think thats a good way, as I get a whole bunch of units I actually don't need.

All in all, its relatively easy to install systemd, because of the work you and others have done, but it doesn't follow the KISS principle at all.

I guess, to make it really affordable it must be declared as official, so the packages itself contain the units, replacing the sysvinit.

Why would you reply to a thread about Upstart to talk about systemd? Anyway, systemd is far from done. Run from AUR if you need and wait until it is at least stable and doesn't have dependencies like util-linux-ng-git. -- -- Rogutės Sparnuotos

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 13:39, slubman <lists@slubman.info> wrote:

Why not looking systemd[1], which is a freedesktop.org project?

[1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd

Heh Heh, I beat you by 5 minutes.Anyway all the Fedora rawhide build use systemd by default and upstart as standby - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd . - Keshav

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 04:12 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Madhur Ahuja <ahuja.madhur@gmail.com>wrote:

...

Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?

Oh God please never. It would be nice to have it as an option for users who are interested (I'm totally for an officially supported option) but there's no need to complicate the init system for users who want to run Arch on for example a server who have no use for upstart or systemd. --Kaiting.

Me too! Me too! If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

On 19/01/11 11:29, 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:

...

Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.

Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?

http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Thanks, Madhur For the nex time, first try to implement this feature/thing in AUR and get it documented via the archwiki.

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 :-)

++

Upstart was developed by an Ubuntu developer, hence the inclusion of it in the Ubuntu distribution. It would obviously be nice to have it in other distributions as it is in my view better than system V. However, as a newcomer to Arch and obviously respecting the Arch philosophy, I must agree with others that just because Ubuntu uses it, it does not mean that all other distributions must use it. There must be some tried experiment for the developers to consider it. I am a long time Ubuntu user, and will not switch to another Desktop distro very soon. However, I have been looking for an alternative on the server side, and since I am also a BSD user, I really liked Arch. In fact I am experimenting virtualization on it, and will probably replace our current Ubuntu servers with it if it turns out to be more viable. Would upstart be nice to have? If it performs better in Arch, than yes. If not, well I a rather have a working System V, than have a non-working upstart one. To conclude, "ubuntu use it" is not an enough argument to me. Regards, Fidel.

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com> wrote:

And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-)

For me its is an unfavorable one. =] If ubuntu did, think two times before doing it. @OP If you look at the forum you will find a lot of arguments showing how bad upstart is. It can be fast but at the cost of being PITA. Regards, Kazuo -- “The journey is more important than the destination—that’s part of life, if you only live for getting to the end, you’re almost always disappointed.” Donald E. Knuth

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Culley Smith <culley.smith@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps someone with more insight into this matter can speak up as to the advantages of upstart vs System V init?

boot times are more of a side affect. for upstart, this may have been a primary goal, but there is much more to systemd. sysvinit doesnt do anything for you.... _anything_ at all. you pass it a number, and it runs ONE app (usually) based on that number, and all other apps up to that number. it can respond to SIGINT, and SIGPWR as well, but thats it. everything else is giant bash scripts. everything you see in /etc/inittab is the extent of sysvinit's power. upstart takes advantage of udev to "bubble up" the init processes. events "emitted" by udev rules trigger various hook points. these hooks fulfill goals, and them emit more events to eventually complete the init goal process; in short, upstart takes a "bottoms up" approach to init -- where you end up is based on the chain of things that have already happened. a downside to this is most dependencies are explicit. systemd is my personal favorite; it is a solid concept and the most novel and complete solution. systemd is related to upstart, but works in the complete opposite direction. with systemd, you define where you WANT TO BE first, and actions "trickle down" to get you there. this is the directly comparative to your thought processes. for example, you set `apache` as a goal/target... apache is started first. if apache needs a filesystem that isnt mounted, it is automounted. if apache were to make a dbus request, the app on the other side is only started at that point, not before. and most importantly, if no one has made an http request yet... apache isnt even started.... but systemd listens on port 80, waiting to start apache when needed. systemd is highly related to Apple's launchd. init/pid 1 has special superpowers endowed to it by the kernel and we should be taking advantage of this, not cutting it off at the neck. not good for servers?? systemd allows you to actually _verify_ that what you wanted started is appropriately started. it lets you use dbus to query init and verify these things in a consistent and programmatic way. it uses cgroups to ensure that apps cannot double fork escape. you can use these cgroups to limit memory/cpu/etc on a per app basis. systemd uses socket/dbus/FS activation... meaning it blocks callers while it starts up the callee... this is 100% TRANSPARENT to the caller. this has nothing to do with "other distros using it". sysvinit has worked well yes; sometimes you fix things because there are better way or times change, not because it's "broke". seriously, have some vision :-) in short: upstart was a great kick in the ass, but i believe it works from the wrong direction though i applaud ubuntu for their vision while everyone is chanting "sysvinit works... blah blah woka woka woka". systemd is the future. it is a true system state manager, and takes over the menial aspects of startup/shutdown with fast code, and even other less trivial processes like RAID. it provides guarantees. it provides interfaces. it does all this with loose or implicit dependencies. i encourage everyone to read these insightful posts by Lennart: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-1.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-2.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-4.html the first is an overview, the last 4 directed at system admins. if your still not convinced after reading those.... you either can't read or you don't do any serious administration work. C Anthony

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:

...

Ubuntu and Fedora has already embraced it.

Any ideas when will Arch switch to upstart based booting system ?

http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Thanks, Madhur

For the nex time, first try to implement this feature/thing in AUR and get it documented via the archwiki.

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. Ubuntu may be a very user friendly distribution, but take that away and you get a distribution that's mediocre at the best of times. And its largely because the Ubuntu devs have no clue how to actually do a Linux system properly. Upstart may be "fast" but I much prefer Arch's init system (With SysV pretending to act like BSD Init.) which is a lot more flexible and much simpler. At the risk of sounding like a dick, sometimes I wish there was a way to flag ideas on this mailing list as Stupid Ideas(tm). Switching Arch to Upstart would be one of them.

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. 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. How was that not relevant? 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. You may not LIKE that I pointed this out about Ubuntu and Upstart, but it is absolutely 100% relevant. I was one of those users who switched from Ubuntu to Arch. I didn't do it because I felt I was too l33t but because Ubuntu's many flaws started getting to me. Upstart was one of those flaws. As I said before being falsely accused of being a troll by someone who couldn't make the connection between Ubuntu's developers and Upstart: Arch's current init system is perfectly fine, it's simple, easy to work with, flexible, and its fast enough. 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. So I'll say it again: Arch switching to Upstart by default is a stupid idea. You want to use Upstart? Put a PKGBUILD on the AUR and use that. Don't crappify Arch just because you miss Ubuntu or think Arch should jump on some misguided bandwagon that takes Linux ass-backwards.

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 13:33 -0600, C Anthony Risinger wrote:

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

Could all ubuntu trolls/ranters leave the building? I mean 90% of the emails in this thread are just about ubuntu versus the world, this whole hate/rage/rant thread won't make the devs enthusiastic for upstart. Package upstart, create a forum thread, gather some evidence that it could be implemented easy in the archlinux and then take it too the devs. (If they would still be interested after all this 16 year old behaviour :P ) happy hacking, -- Jelle van der Waa

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:

...

Package upstart, create a forum thread, gather some evidence that it could be implemented easy in the archlinux and then take it too the devs. (If they would still be interested after all this 16 year old behaviour :P )

First of all what exactly needs to be done to support upstart or systemd in Arch? Packages for both exist in the AUR. Is it a drop in replacement (perhaps add a kernel boot parameter init=/path/to/upstart)? Or is it more involved than that? --Kaiting.

There's a topic (and wiki page) on the forum regarding systemd in Arch: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=96316 https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd Personally, I think systemd looks pretty interesting. Cheers, Sander

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

<snip> We should really stop this. The OP doesn't have any interest to participate to the discussion. In 12 hours he didn't replied to any of your ideas, clearly he is a troll. Let this thread to die... -- Ionuț