4 ms·

So why does RedHat seem to get a pass with GNUists when they do similar things, such as with writing systemd instead of patching upstart?

dscrd 14y ago
It's a good point. I see two options: 1. we're irrational morons and just like RedHat more or 2. systemd is technically so much better than upstart. Perhaps both.
- fingerprinter 14y ago
  Ah, the old false dichotomy logical fallacy.
  - dscrd 14y ago
    Well, either it actually isn't or you're trying to troll me.
andor 14y ago
Some core concepts of upstart and systemd are incompatible. Even if they patched upstart instead of starting from scratch it would now be a completely different system. In his initial blog post about systemd, Lennart Poettering writes: "Well, the point of the part about Upstart above was to show that the core design of Upstart is flawed, in our opinion. Starting completely from scratch suggests itself if the existing solution appears flawed in its core. However, note that we took a lot of inspiration from Upstart's code-base otherwise." Link: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html Unlike the Mir specs, this post is really detailed. Upstart is certainly an improvement on sysvinit, but falls short compared to more modern init systems like Apple's launchd.
- Sanddancer 14y ago
  Mir likewise states that inherent incompatibilities is exactly why they're creating a new project as well. Though a big difference being that Upstart is actually in use, whereas no one's using Wayland. To be quite honest, a lot Poettering's rationalizations with systemd, especially when discussing other inits like launchd, seem to be purely NIH. He could do this work and organize with what's already out there, but he'd rather do our own thing. Instead of creating a system that is backward compatible, he's saying for daemon writers to write for a completely new specification, and to ignore any pretenses of compatibility, like not double forking. More discouraging are the intentional incompatibilities, and statements that they're only targeting the linux kernel and udev, and will reject patches that make it more compatible with other systems.
  - ibotty 14y ago
    that's just not right. see how many port activated upstart starting scripts there were before systemd entered the scene. there is the difference as well, that mir has no solid reasoning (or its reasoning gets debunked shortly afterwards).

dscrd 14y ago

It's a good point. I see two options: 1. we're irrational morons and just like RedHat more or 2. systemd is technically so much better than upstart. Perhaps both.

fingerprinter 14y ago
Ah, the old false dichotomy logical fallacy.
- dscrd 14y ago
  Well, either it actually isn't or you're trying to troll me.

andor 14y ago

Some core concepts of upstart and systemd are incompatible. Even if they patched upstart instead of starting from scratch it would now be a completely different system. In his initial blog post about systemd, Lennart Poettering writes: "Well, the point of the part about Upstart above was to show that the core design of Upstart is flawed, in our opinion. Starting completely from scratch suggests itself if the existing solution appears flawed in its core. However, note that we took a lot of inspiration from Upstart's code-base otherwise." Link: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html Unlike the Mir specs, this post is really detailed. Upstart is certainly an improvement on sysvinit, but falls short compared to more modern init systems like Apple's launchd.

Sanddancer 14y ago
Mir likewise states that inherent incompatibilities is exactly why they're creating a new project as well. Though a big difference being that Upstart is actually in use, whereas no one's using Wayland. To be quite honest, a lot Poettering's rationalizations with systemd, especially when discussing other inits like launchd, seem to be purely NIH. He could do this work and organize with what's already out there, but he'd rather do our own thing. Instead of creating a system that is backward compatible, he's saying for daemon writers to write for a completely new specification, and to ignore any pretenses of compatibility, like not double forking. More discouraging are the intentional incompatibilities, and statements that they're only targeting the linux kernel and udev, and will reject patches that make it more compatible with other systems.
- ibotty 14y ago
  that's just not right. see how many port activated upstart starting scripts there were before systemd entered the scene. there is the difference as well, that mir has no solid reasoning (or its reasoning gets debunked shortly afterwards).