3 ms·
RHEL6 used upstart also. I had to write/maintain upstart files, too. systemd picked up steam inside Red Hat because of the number of edge cases upstart DID NOT
by evol262 4y ago
RHEL6 used upstart also. I had to write/maintain upstart files, too. systemd picked up steam inside Red Hat because of the number of edge cases upstart DID NOT handle.
It didn't do socket based activation at all. It didn't handle day 2 operations well (if you changed the configuration of some parent service and the children needed to be restarted, this was just as manual as sysvinit but with a clunkier format). overrides were terrible. Failing out on a depchain was problematic.
The debian politics never would have gotten there if Lennart (and others) didn't decide that it was easier/better to start from a clean slate instead of upstart's weird middleground of a "script" verb to kinda sort make transitioning from sysvinit scripts easier, but not a wholesale reconception of what an init system needed to be in 2015 or whatever year that was.
systemd was, in a sense, crowned because Redhat also tried upstart and had to suck lemons for an entire release/support cycle, wrote something better, and Debian followed on. Not because Redhat/others didn't try to make it work, or because of 7 people.
- pydry 4y ago>It didn't do socket based activation at all. Pretty sure it did actually. >upstart's weird middleground of a "script" verb What middleground? Upstart files werent scripts like sysvvinit they were declarative just like systemd. I can see why red hat dumped it - they were clearly keen on "owning" PID 1 and would prefer not to depend upon ubuntus project. It's the 7/8 person debian vote (split 50/50 and swung by one vote) that I found mystifying. It not only crowned a worse designed project burdened with a massive case of feature creep, that was weirdly unresponsive to bugs it killed off its competition.