On Nov 15, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:45:48AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >>> This is not theoretical. upstart has been PID 1 in Ubuntu since 2006. It >>> *is* absolutely dependable and reliable. > >> Upstart has had its problems, too [1]. > >> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/+bug/557177 > > A bug in an upstart job, and your dissatisfaction with how the upstart > maintainer responded to the bug report, is entirely orthogonal to Roger's > point about complexity in PID 1. I don't think so. It shows what can happen if you delagate fundamental tasks out of the core init binary into external bash scripts. Upstart has to rely entirely rely on the external script to do the right thing instead of doing it itself. You are constantly argueing that this makes the whole system more reliable, yet it took one apparently harmless command to kill the entire filesystem. I don't want to imagine this situation on our backup or home directory server. This would not have happened with systemd's design. > >> And, honestly, the way this bug was handled left me with little confidence >> in upstart. > > I'm very sad for you. So, you think marking such a major flaw as a wishlist is an appropriate reaction? Adrian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1a08d899-27f3-474f-8619-2ca57032c...@physik.fu-berlin.de
