3 ms·
Upstart existed before systemd. I used to think it was NIH syndrome, but its initial release was in 2006, whereas systemd's was in 2010.
by ppseafield 6y ago
Upstart existed before systemd. I used to think it was NIH syndrome, but its initial release was in 2006, whereas systemd's was in 2010.
- gjsman-1000 6y agoIt's not just a release date issue. It matters (to me, at least) that Canonical was doing it's thing, RH invents something shortly after that trounces Canonical, Canonical makes futile attempts to save the ship before finally dumping the project. For example, Upstart. RH invents SystemD, Canonical stays with Upstart until, like, 2017 before giving up.
- ppseafield 6y agosystemd's widespread adoption was somewhat controversial and took years. I realize Upstart didn't receive widespread adoption, and Canonical has historically liked to start its own products (Mir and Unity as you noted). But the discussion around systemd was not "everyone except Canonical thinks it's good", and Upstart had been in development for several years.
- xav0989 6y agoWasn't it Canonical creates Upstart, switches Ubuntu to it, RH switches to it; a few years later, RH creates SystemD, RH switches to it, Ubuntu switches to it?
- stubish 6y agoUbuntu didn't switch to systemd. Debian switched to systemd, and Ubuntu had to follow or pretty much drop Debian as its upstream.
- account42 6y agoNah, they could have maintined Upstart integration like they did before. The number of packages that need init system integration is tiny compared to the whole of Debian.
- mekster 6y agoDo you want Canonical to just adopt whatever the new hot RH stuff as soon as it's stable? You do want to know the alternative is stable and better for a few years before even thinking to make the change. It's easy to laugh at the history after it took place.