systemd (Was Re: tmpfs for strategic directories)
mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Tue Jun 1 01:06:47 UTC 2010
On Wed, 26.05.10 18:02, Scott James Remnant (scott at canonical.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Oh come on. Thanks for turning this into something personal.
> You did that last week - I got forwarded logs from #systemd. That's
> probably why I wasn't in a great mood with you this morning ;-)
Not sure what you are referring to.
> I'm not sure there's any point in technical discussion about the
> relative merits of our two approaches at this point, since you've
> already *written* systemd and you're already pushing for inclusion in
> distributions, and I'm continuing to develop Upstart and already have it
> in distributions.
Well, the members of this mailing list are definitely interested in the
relative merits of both systems, since it is people on this mailing list
who in the end will have to come up with an informed decision about
systemd adoption in Fedora.
I mean, I have been writing novels here about how awesome systemd is
(and how upstart isn't ;-)). If you think that Fedora would make a
big mistake in adopting systemd, then please point out why, I am pretty
sure people will listen if you keep things technical.
It's always good to hear both sides when a decision needs to be made.
> So what we've ended up with is two different systems, and one can assume
> that roughly half the distributions will end up with one, and another
> half with the other.
Well. We'll see about that.
> At least we have the common standard of the LSB Init Scripts that both
> will support.
Well, it would be good if we'd have more than that. Since you want to
support socket-based activation too now in Upstart it would be great if
we could also come to an agreement on the $LISTEN_FD iface and similar.
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
More information about the devel