4 ms·

People liked to paint it as politics, but there were technical critiques such as Russ Allbery's for starters. * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b

by JdeBP 6y ago

People liked to paint it as politics, but there were technical critiques such as Russ Allbery's for starters. * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#1729 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#172... And yes, people do erroneously paint it as only a choice between van Smoorenburg init+rc and systemd, as if they were the only two possibilities, when in fact in the Debian Hoo-Hah (for one) it was effectively a choice between systemd, upstart, and OpenRC, nearly all parties agreeing at one point in the proceedings that van Smoorenburg init+rc was last choice, either before or after "further discussion". * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#6729 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#672...

pydry 6y ago
The criticisms levied at upstart there are more about lack of features, not really about overall approach. It's easier to add features than it is to fix a deficient design. Moreover, I'm not really so sure a couple of those features even belong in an init system. Debian's decision effectively doomed upstart and led to an init system monoculture. The practical upshot is that no competition for systemd means no pressure to improve. Even for systemd it was a bad decision.
- JdeBP 6y ago
  Actually it was about overall approach. Read M. Allberry's further discussions in that bug with Colin Watson, Steve Langasek, and others. Josh Triplett critiques it as well. Cameron Norman's discussion with Nikolaus Rath is also relevant. There were actually quite a lot of technical discussions about the fundamentals of the various architectures. Ian Jackson's and others' discussions about readiness protocols is worth reading, for example. One cannot truly portray this as either "politics" or only about lack of features. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/debian-systemd-packaging-hoo-hah.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/debian-systemd-packaging-hoo-hah.html * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-daemon-readiness-protocol-problems.html#Choice http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-daemon-readiness-protocol-problems...

by JdeBP 6y ago

pydry 6y ago

The criticisms levied at upstart there are more about lack of features, not really about overall approach. It's easier to add features than it is to fix a deficient design. Moreover, I'm not really so sure a couple of those features even belong in an init system. Debian's decision effectively doomed upstart and led to an init system monoculture. The practical upshot is that no competition for systemd means no pressure to improve. Even for systemd it was a bad decision.

JdeBP 6y ago
Actually it was about overall approach. Read M. Allberry's further discussions in that bug with Colin Watson, Steve Langasek, and others. Josh Triplett critiques it as well. Cameron Norman's discussion with Nikolaus Rath is also relevant. There were actually quite a lot of technical discussions about the fundamentals of the various architectures. Ian Jackson's and others' discussions about readiness protocols is worth reading, for example. One cannot truly portray this as either "politics" or only about lack of features. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/debian-systemd-packaging-hoo-hah.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/debian-systemd-packaging-hoo-hah.html * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-daemon-readiness-protocol-problems.html#Choice http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-daemon-readiness-protocol-problems...