systemd (Was Re: tmpfs for strategic directories)

[Scott James Remnant]

On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 17:24 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:

> > Can you point us to where any background discussion has taken place
> > with Upstart folks?
> 
> No, I cannot. Kay and I and a couple of others sat down at various LPC
> and GUADEC and discussed what we would like to see in an init
> system. And we had long discussions, but ultimately most of our ideas
> were outright rejected by Scott, such as the launchd-style activation
> and the cgroup stuff, two of the most awesome features in systemd
> now. (That said, we actually managed to convince him on other points,
> i.e. I believe we played a role in turning him from a D-Bus-hater into a
> D-Bus-lover).
> 
Sorry, but that's complete bullshit.

We did sit down and discuss things, and you convinced me that
launchd-style activation was a useful thing to have.  Then you went off
and wrote systemd anyway.

And it was Ryan Lortie who convinced me that D-Bus was the right way to
go very early on, the conversion of Upstart to D-Bus happened years ago
(Fedora is lagging behind on versions so only just got that).

> So we have discussed this with Scott in much detail, and we have
> followed his development for a longer time. But in the end I just
> don't think Upstart is the right thing, and fundamentally flawed and
> unlikely to change direction, which is why we chose to start anew, and
> not just "fix" Upstart. For more about that just read my blog story.
> 
Given that I have changed direction a couple of times with Upstart, and
have been swayed to different courses by a good argument, I refuse that
it's "unlikely to change direction" ;-)

I'm certainly more interested in getting Upstart *right* than in rushing
to get it finished by a certain date.


To be clear, I believe the reason you implemented systemd instead of
contributing help to Upstart is:

 a) your personal distaste for Ubuntu and Canonical

 b) your personal distaste for the copyright assignment policy (RedHat
    have signed this agreement for Upstart fwiw)

 c) your personal love of nih ;-)

I don't think that's a bad thing, I certainly share (c) in equal
measures <g>.  I'm also not going to argue that Fedora shouldn't chose a
different init system to mine, that's not really my place to do so.

However I do dispute that I haven't been flexible wrt Upstart's design;
indeed I would claim that part of the reason development is slower than
the rapid against-the-wall pace of other projects, is that I'm too
flexible with its design ;-)

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott at canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100526/1908457b/attachment.bin