Hi! All these concerns about systemd and systemd vs. upstart have been addressed in a very good way by the systemd authors. Also, I would like to point out that "systemd" is the name of a project with multiple binaries - all the features systemd provides don't mean that everything is running in one process, in fact, systemd spawns some helpers on-demand for many actions. (However, the systemd core does more things than SysVInit, but as long as this code is tested and works well (and isn't changed that often) I have no concern) Also, systemd provides systemd-logind, an excellent way to get rid of ConsoleKit, which also makes it possible to have real multiseat support. And managing services using systemd is fantastic! :)
But well, back to udev: I am not personally involved with the udev packaging, but has someone already talked to the people making the criticised decisions to explain themselves? I don't think ReadHat developers want to do any damage to these integral components, so I hardly think that there were no reasons for a change. Also, if these issues cannot be solved, would maintaining a small patchset for udev be an option? Cheers, Matthias 2012/11/14 Uoti Urpala <uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi>: > 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 > -- 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/CAKNHny9eocGg7xjYxo_duhihox=r60b_uf7tpwzg_b+xopj...@mail.gmail.com
