Steve Langasek wrote: > Pretty sure you have this backwards. The decision to implement upstart and > use it in Ubuntu was a technical [corrected] one. The decision to NIH a > dependency-based init system and then try to strongarm everyone into using > it by breaking compatibility was the political one.
The decision to create upstart was a technical decision. However, upstart had design flaws, and so systemd was created to do better. This was also a technical decision. Do you seriously claim that it would have been possible to work within the existing upstart project to bring it to the level of current systemd? I find that totally implausible. Ubuntu still sticking to upstart is a political decision as far as I can see; there is no technical reason why it would be a better alternative even for their own use than systemd. > BTW, if systemd is a good design, why does it rely so heavily on > socket-based activation, which has fundamentally unmaintainable security? What exactly do you mean by this "fundamentally unmaintainable security" claim? -- 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/1352929546.1952.10.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
