3 ms·

Thank God for that !

• rektide 5y ago
  I'm very much in the "Thank God"-ish camp (if ya'll welcome others, non denominations & non-believers), but... wouldn't it be interesting if. It's convenient that we've consolidated down, but that famous freedom of choice seems to be circumscribed now by a ellipse with systemd at one focus point, and refusenik shell-script-only minimal pid1s at the other. Having a more active & ongoing paradigmatic discourse would have been interesting. So I kind of want a synopsis for upstart. These threads might provide some of that material. I'd touched upstart a couple times back so long ago, & the words "event-based" keep flashing before me, but I don't have much recall on upstart. What was it bad at? What didn't people like? What did people like? What was novel & interesting? What had potential but didn't quite work out? What was the best operational parts of it? There's so much tech in the world that doesn't quite make it, or which did make it & fell (CORBA), & we really need more Speakers For the Dead, people who can try to tell us the story of the tech earnestly, who can help us memorialize something by drawing together as much understanding, from as many points of view as they can.
  • teddyh 5y ago
    > I don't have much recall on upstart. What was it bad at? The author of systemd addresses this question in the original blog post which announced the systemd project (look under the heading “On Upstart”): http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd
    • robocat 5y ago
      What a great summary! In my words: systemd works from a dependency graph, and upstart uses procedural events (dependencies implicit in code). Upstart is still used by ChromiumOS: https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/boot-design https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/...