>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

>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.