Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
Excerpts from Noah Meyerhans's message of 2014-02-14 14:47:49 -0800: On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:40:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: I have to admit that I did *not* expect this. At all. http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 Quite the opposite - some people felt it would be inevitable that Debian choosing systemd would effectively be a death sentence for Upstart I'm not sure I understand why. Debian and Ubuntu have been using different init systems for some time now, with Ubuntu on upstart and Debian on sysvinit. Why should our change of defaults really matter to them, when they weren't using our default anyway? Because Ubuntu was pushing hard on boot speed and being more event driven. In places where Ubuntu is focused, it will often diverge from Debian for a while, or in the case of Unity for instance, forever. But it is turning out that systemd still upholds Ubuntu's reasons for making Upstart, but without the go it alone problems that have been present since systemd appeared and supplanted Upstart in so many distros. -- 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/1392452682-sup-5...@fewbar.com
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Noah Meyerhans wrote: I'm not sure I understand why. Debian and Ubuntu have been using different init systems for some time now, with Ubuntu on upstart and Debian on sysvinit. Why should our change of defaults really matter to them, when they weren't using our default anyway? Or might they be resigned to the tight coupling that Ian Jackson is so worried about? As Debian becomes more tightly bound to systemd, using something else may prove increasingly difficult. Well, it is difficult to second-guess Shuttelworth, but the tight coupling is likely to be part of it. This was a non-issue with sysvinit (for Debian) and upstart (for Ubuntu), but with systemd we will have to get involved upstream. Debian and Ubuntu together have enough weight to affect systemd development somewhat, and more imporantly, enough resources to permanently maintain a fork should that ever become necessary (I have no reasons to belive it will happen, and I don't count minor distro-specific changes as a fork). -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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/20140215150926.gc5...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
]] Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Well, it is difficult to second-guess Shuttelworth, but the tight coupling is likely to be part of it. This was a non-issue with sysvinit (for Debian) and upstart (for Ubuntu), but with systemd we will have to get involved upstream. Debian and Ubuntu together have enough weight to affect systemd development somewhat, and more imporantly, enough resources to permanently maintain a fork should that ever become necessary (I have no reasons to belive it will happen, and I don't count minor distro-specific changes as a fork). You make it sound like we are not involved upstream and that we don't already have weight to affect systemd development. Neither of those are true. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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/m2y51c9xpw@rahvafeir.err.no
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Well, it is difficult to second-guess Shuttelworth, but the tight coupling is likely to be part of it. This was a non-issue with sysvinit (for Debian) and upstart (for Ubuntu), but with systemd we will have to get involved upstream. Debian and Ubuntu together have enough weight to affect systemd development somewhat, and more imporantly, enough resources to permanently maintain a fork should that ever become necessary (I have no reasons to belive it will happen, and I don't count minor distro-specific changes as a fork). You make it sound like we are not involved upstream and that we don't already have weight to affect systemd development. Neither of those are true. I didn't mean to imply Debian had no involvement or influence with systemd upstream, so thanks for clearing that up. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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/20140215180235.ga9...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Ubuntu will switch to systemd
I have to admit that I did *not* expect this. At all. http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 14/02/14 19:15, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I have to admit that I did *not* expect this. At all. http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 Quite the opposite - some people felt it would be inevitable that Debian choosing systemd would effectively be a death sentence for Upstart -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJS/mMUAAoJEOm1uwJp1aqDd4EP/0v9FArZvoNUCARLanyR5+9t HkYW4FPuVf20gBfq67lLcmJRLfmWPjNIkT1c8l3Gz1j1vUuDqPYcVi24Ye8HCnOp ydl/ABfpMctyM4IktdwcGdymgr8jhE7KZ22JgFv/Eo4QFaKaR0IjZ/MFncOBxu4i 1HpM7mgQT1lo4rfjiDURavizKqPZX/1Vns0DR6sPHglUgMP4kk6y4g3tb8lNsBb3 S02FqiD4saDembRmuyScEyIx06Pns9UYcjRYPCfFGMjHJdUy0zIud7Z0mM5rrVoY tlCmzebWAQcVABAG9ysqsAhmWx/ZzK7JlpdLqXQRqmEz4XpPutB1OLjYjBvYhUqy vKOhTuBM5iGav7a6wnVIB6tlNbUcuUqnlFqkt1sINiI/2tMWej+7o9E2vUUbwASR bvkit3LoM/hOze2CDrORmKOqk+7reNyKrCU4RYErja4q9xs6B9aM6rlvEDMR0Gvr RAbGqBORKMDO9xDdmkCk9P3FKXaBvASTZxYtu8pN8g7PZCjuR+4kcXQMjb7HgqqJ MT1ZxHCsNinl+wVnyJYZQ5Aq2MdFnvfM2EPSuv4pV2uYzC+42b0ANEVBgEIpFG5n yBWp4sC0vX1EAj/Q+kv1lqQiPylJfHNZfbCkO+fIBluKpirYo7SpIYSIDnKlqOgi WLTeSBEKWuAg6wB6rBPG =xiFA -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/52fe6314.6000...@pocock.com.au
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
Hi, Daniel Pocock: I have to admit that I did *not* expect this. At all. Quite the opposite - some people felt it would be inevitable that Debian choosing systemd would effectively be a death sentence for Upstart So did/do I. But that doesn't mean that I expected Mark to acknowledge that this candidly, much less a mere week after the TC's decision. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 19:15 +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 That's really interesting... and disturbing... in so many ways. First, while I don't like everything about systemd, I was/am in favour of it (as long as we can keep the non-Linux ports alive)... Russ made a very good analysis some time ago, while it's simply better and I guess many people felt the core design of upstart to be broken, not to talk about some unpleasant long time bugs in it. And I also agree with people like Ian or Andi, that it's bad if high level software makes to strong bonds to such low level stuff (most notably GNOME). I wasn't the only one who expected and posted here that Debian's decision would be also a decision about the fate of upstart,... Ubuntu was/is the only bigger distro left, that used it as their current default init system... and even though Mark doesn't clearly say it... his post is most probably the death sentence for Upstart. What I find quite amusing is that he claims it to be truly great free software, especially when one thinks that systemd might have never came into existence if there wasn't the CLA. What's quite disturbing is, that he puts some focus on Bdale Garbee’s casting vote as if the whole thing was his fault and as if he'd make him responsible. Doesn't sound too friendly in my ears, to be honest,... but maybe it's just some misconception. But now there's the really interesting part: Debian and it's community went through some bad weeks now, people shouting at each other, TC members trying to remove others and so on. What if upstart would have been dead already? I guess no big discussion would have came up! Most people agree that sysvinit is legacy and as long as we allow the non-Linux ports to continue with something else, these would have been happy as well. And the discussion about init-system coupling is IMHO anyway a much broader one... it's more or less the same discussion whether a desktop environment should be allowed to strictly couple on something like NM, Avahi, etc.. Further, I'd guess that Mark wasn't caught by surprise with the tech-ctte's decision. He might not have followed every tiny bit of the whole lengthy story, but I'm sure he was aware. Now either he believed in upstart and it's design and strengths and hoped for it to win... and when he did that I really wonder why he gave up now? Even before a not so unlikely GR. Canonical has shown with mir that they have no problem to go a different way that what more or less everybody in the FLOSS world thinks is the right way... for whatever reasons (I don't know whether they have real technical reasons or others). So if they'd have really believed in upstart, I'd have expected them to continue now, especially when it seems that Debian will continue to support it anyway (just not choosing it as the default init-system). So that somehow makes me think: They didn't believe in it themselves and already new that systemd was superior, that upstart has design issues, etc. pp. But then the question would be: why didn't they tell us in advance? If it would have been clear that the main group behind upstart will likely abandon it, all the discussions of the last week would have likely been moot. All the upstart may be supported in freebsd in some near future etc. would have been pointless, since it would have been clear that upstart will see a similar fate than bzr. Now is that behaviour nice against Debian? I don't think so. And once more it makes me question, whether the Debian/Ubuntu relationship is really that healthy for Debian in all areas. Undoubtedly there are areas where Debian benefits... but given that it often seems that Canonical wants to drive Ubuntu rather in a lone island/hype experience than all these iOS, Chrome OS, etc. out there... I doubt that it's healthy for Debian on a broad view. Cheers, Chris. btw: And quite obviously, this post is not about bashing upstart,.. to me it seems actually as if they'd be kinda betrayed by their very own BDFL... and undoubtedly they did some great job in showing ideas for a better init-system than sysvinit was, which is IIRC even admitted by the systemd upstream. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
[Christoph Anton Mitterer] btw: And quite obviously, this post is not about bashing upstart,.. No, and it's also not about Debian. Could we ... do our Canonical bashing somewhere else? Please? Thanks. -- 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/20140214221907.ga4...@p12n.org
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:40:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: I have to admit that I did *not* expect this. At all. http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 Quite the opposite - some people felt it would be inevitable that Debian choosing systemd would effectively be a death sentence for Upstart I'm not sure I understand why. Debian and Ubuntu have been using different init systems for some time now, with Ubuntu on upstart and Debian on sysvinit. Why should our change of defaults really matter to them, when they weren't using our default anyway? Or might they be resigned to the tight coupling that Ian Jackson is so worried about? As Debian becomes more tightly bound to systemd, using something else may prove increasingly difficult. noah signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ubuntu will switch to systemd
On Feb 14, 2014, at 07:40 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: Quite the opposite - some people felt it would be inevitable that Debian choosing systemd would effectively be a death sentence for Upstart Keep in mind that (just as before the ctte decision and Mark's announcement) Upstart is free software, licensed under the terms of the GPLv2. This means that Ubuntu's decision to follow Debian does not necessarily mean a death sentence for Upstart. Sure, it probably means that Ubuntu will at some point cease to put resources into the project, but just like any other GPLv2'd software, someone else may come along with a new vision, crazy idea, or an interesting repurposing, and adopt the code. And just like before these decisions, if that person doesn't like the CLA, there's nothing stopping them from forking the project and maintaining it themselves under a different regime, or no CLA at all. This may seem like a silly or moot point, but it actually shows the beautiful thing about FLOSS. Projects only die because no one cares about them any more. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
