3 ms·
Upstart was used because it was better than traditional init, and was used by Fedora as well. Then again, Linux could have had a much better init system many ye
by Sanddancer 14y ago
Upstart was used because it was better than traditional init, and was used by Fedora as well. Then again, Linux could have had a much better init system many years ago, but the GPL zealots wouldn't hear of having launchd, and its less restrictive license, be used.
- iso-8859-1 14y agoI don't think that's the reason. Apple even relicensed launchd to make it easier to use. It still didn't get adopted.
- Sanddancer 14y agoTo clarify, my comment was that even before relicensing, launchd was under a less restrictive license than the GPL -- the APSL allows for binary linking -- but had clauses that didn't allow people to GPL their code. By the time launchd was relicensed, ubuntu had already released upstart, and another init replacement so quickly would have alienated people.
- zanny 14y agoI don't see the problem in wanting to keep the guts of the OS forced-free by license. If any of the deepest components of the Linux stack were MIT or BSD licensed, it wouldn't take long for some business to fork it into a proprietary blob they push for market adoption and you lose the freedom deep in the OS.
- Sanddancer 14y agoWith something like init, I would have to disagree. The biggest problem with this decision is that they ended up with an inferior project that wasn't nearly as flexible as the open options. While there are certain areas where keeping things under a restrictive license like the GPL may be useful, the init system is one where I can't see of any way how a closed system would offer any sort of competitive advantage.