2007/5/29, Soren Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The only cause for confusion, as I see it, is that you expected > /etc/initrc to be existant. When that was missing, you thought the whole > world had been turned upside down. The fact remains that from the > perspective of anyone who wants to change the order in which stuff > starts, *nothing* has changed. No, not really.. At first I misspelled /etc/initrc, it should be /etc/inittab, and I know that. And I have nothing against "a new better model" (Upstart), if it is fully implemted and working.
> It works. It's been tested. It's implemented. We're just not making > much use of it *yet*, but why should that matter? That is just what I mean with "not fully implemented". By implement something and not use it, it is not fully implemented. If I am about to build a server form scrach (more or less) and will edit a lot in /etc/init.d/ and /etc/rc?.d/ I have to learn SysV/init. That fine, no big deal. But now I also have to learn how much of Upstart is implemented. And I don't know what happens with my setup when you deside to start using a litle more of Upstart. My setup might crach totaly. If Upstart would have been fully implemeted at one time, I only would have to learn Upstart, and there would be less problems when upgrading, as fiewer things would change. > Why is it confusing that everything is the same as it used to be? It's not. Some things are run the init-way and some things are run the Upstart-way. And there probably is an ongoing transfer from init to Upstart which will cause trouble if I don't use the standard (non edited) scripts in /etc/init.d/ > > > If Upstart was fully implemeted it would have been another situation. > > Quite the contrary. In that case, everything would be different from > what you're used to. Yes, and that is okay with me. If everything is different I just have to stick to the new thing and learn that. No I have to learn Upstart, and keep track of what is implemented and what is not. > > Yes, because of Upstart. > > Huh? Don't cut the sentence.. read the whole line. To rewrite, if you really didn't understand what I meant: If I cant change back to SysV I have to change distro. This is because of Upstart just because I don't want it when it is half-implemented. Now I know there is a way to change back to SysV, so this is no big deal anymore. 2007/5/29, Nicola Larosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 2007/5/29, Nicola Larosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Upstart isn't about boot time and it is just perfect for servers. > > Anders Häggström wrote: > > Well, some say it is, you say it isn't. I don't like confusion. > > Ehm, I did not say that, check your attributions. :-) Sorry, wrong person. Didn't your realise that? The one who wrote it relised it at least. 2007/5/29, Ante Karamatić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Anders Häggström wrote: > > >> Upstart isn't about boot time and it is just perfect for servers. > > > Well, some say it is, you say it isn't. I don't like confusion. > > Internet is full of articles that say 'Upstart makes Ubuntu boot > faster'. Those who write that didn't check the init system. If they did, > they would find out the same thing we are saying to you - Ubuntu uses > sysv. What makes Ubuntu boot faster is - dash. Yes, that might be true. Because Upstart is "implemented" but does only use the sysv-scripts instead of its own model. I start to relize that now. Thanks again. I think things are starting to get a litle brighter now. =) And I've decided to stick to SysV until Upstart is fully implemented, at least on at the servers where I am manipulating the booting process. // Anders -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
