5 ms·

Upstart was created before systemd. Edit: Upstart was a great sysvinit replacement, at least during those years before systemd appeared.

• dschulz 13y ago
  That's not compelling.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • vacri 13y ago
    The 'compelling' reason was "sysv has a ton of problems". Upstart was an earlier attempt to resolves those problems - whether it does those well or not doesn't mean that there wasn't a compelling reason to create it.
• rodgerd 13y ago
  upstart was always a mediocre to terrible sysv replacement. The fact it couldn't handle such insignificant programs like postfix natively speaks volumes.
  • ash 13y ago
    When I wrote "replacement", I didn't mean that all sysv scripts must be replaced. Postfix sysv script works fine with upstart, doesn't it?
    • mercurial 13y ago
      > When I wrote "replacement", I didn't mean that all sysv scripts must be replaced. Postfix sysv script works fine with upstart, doesn't it? I'm honestly not sure if you are making fun of upstart or if you're trying to say that having to keep a sysv compatibility mode around because upstart is not able to handle an extremely common daemon is somehow acceptable.
    • rodgerd 13y ago
      Sure, if you consider it "fine" that upstart is too broken to reliably run a reasonably standard and fairly important daemon in native mode.
• kazagistar 13y ago
  sysv init was created before upstart, so it clearly must be even better? Your argument makes no sense...