3 ms·
> the script-heavy init system that preceded it ... was the non-shell-script upstart on at least two major operating systems, for quite a few years. * http://
by JdeBP 10y ago
> the script-heavy init system that preceded it
... was the non-shell-script upstart on at least two major operating systems, for quite a few years.
* http://uselessd.darknedgy.net./ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net./ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
* http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/
- ajross 10y agoPoeterring works for Red Hat and it was written on Fedora. Yes, Ubuntu had something else. I don't see how that's relevant to a discussion of systemd's design goals.
- JdeBP 10y agoFedora was one of those two systems, using upstart since Fedora 9. If you are going to participate in a systemd discussion, you should know what you are talking about, lest you once again (as indeed you are) promote the There Is Only System 5 init And systemd fallacy. Read the Uselessd Guy's articles already pointed to. Read the Debian Hoo-Hah where there were four choices. Read Lennart Poettering's own explanation, widely published a couple of years ago now, of how upstart was the motivator.