Live data from Hacker News

Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

lists.debian.org

51–60 of 152 posts

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#51
post #20

Not a surprise, was there a compelling reason for upstart at all?

Not that I can think of. Upstart is slightly simpler than systemd to build configuration files for, but that's also because it doesn't have any advanced features like memory/processor/IO limits or the like. Additionally it doesn't even properly manage child processes... so you have to use wrappers to get Unicorn management working right in Upstart.

Upstart took years to add support for setuid/setgrp and still doesn't have basic features like a respawn delay which shipped in launchd (or 90s inetd) before upstart was released. There's still no integrated way to reliably kill malfunctioning child processes and the commands will block until success so you're going to need to kill -9 a lot when e.g. adjusting a script for a daemon which forks.

I was rooting for upstart for years but it's hard to take seriously as a project when basic sysadmin tasks are still gratuitously hard / unreliable.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#53
post #33
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Systemd isn't portable to non-linux. (And while you may not care about debian kfreebsd, some people do)

There are no working ports of upstart to non-linux, and up until 2 months ago no-one was even trying to. It's about as portable as systemd (i.e. with a bunch of work and if you don't mind forking it).

The difference is that upstream for upstart is open to BSD/Hurd/etc. ports, whereas upstream for systemd is pretty strongly opposed to them and it does not seem they would assist in the effort.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#54

Not a surprise, was there a compelling reason for upstart at all?

systemd breaks LXC and lmctfy. systemd is not event based (matter of taste, I guess, but I prefer Upstart's model).

Looking at to the Arch wiki (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lxc-systemd) it seems like LXC can be at least partially reconciled with systemd. Are there any features of LXC that absolutely can't be made to work with systemd?

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#55
post #47
post #17

Can anyone give a quick rundown of the different init systems? For the most part it can get confusing for a non day to day system administrator when I am trying to get a program to "run on boot". Between rc.local, init.d, run levels, etc. sometimes it is just frustrating.

Just my two cents as I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread: launchd is the init system used by Mac OSX and has been ported to FreeBSD a few years ago with a recent resurgent effort for improvements [1]. It has been suggested that launchd could one day be the new FreeBSD init system due to speed and feature improvements, but many FreeBSD users think that the init system is a non-issue and efforts could be better…

systemd is basically launchd for Linux (and only Linux). The systemd devs make no apology about the launchd inspiration.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#57
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite as simple as that, because if all the remaining committee members vote F (further discussion) ahead of D (systemd) then D gets dropped before the casting vote stage (Debian constitution A.6.3). So far one of the four remaining committee members has done this, another is expected to, leaving the decisions of the remaining two to determine whether the vote completes or not.

Sorry for spreading misinformation, it seems that I got exited too soon. Still, I find somewhat unlikely that all the others member will vote F ahead of D. Are you referring to the "Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort." paragraph of the Debian constitution? It's a bit cryptic for a non-native like me, so I'm not sure that I'm reading it right.

Can you change the title? The current title is so misleading that I feel like flagging it is in order.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#58
post #42
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, the only other vote that's been cast so far, which is in the other direction (3 people haven't yet voted): https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00288.html

To be fair he is also the Ubuntu developer and upstart maintainer on the committee

What is there to be or to not "be fair" about? mjn's comment was a value neutral statement of fact. There was nothing prejudicial in his comment.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#59
post #33
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Systemd isn't portable to non-linux. (And while you may not care about debian kfreebsd, some people do)

There are no working ports of upstart to non-linux, and up until 2 months ago no-one was even trying to. It's about as portable as systemd (i.e. with a bunch of work and if you don't mind forking it).

systemd fairly strongly depends on linux cgroups for process monitoring and management, no? I don't believe there's a suitable analog in any of the BSDs.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#60
post #57
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for spreading misinformation, it seems that I got exited too soon. Still, I find somewhat unlikely that all the others member will vote F ahead of D. Are you referring to the "Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort." paragraph of the Debian constitution? It's a bit cryptic for a non-native like me, so I'm not sure that I'm reading it right.

Can you change the title? The current title is so misleading that I feel like flagging it is in order.

You're asking the wrong guy, I didn't submit this.
Post reply on HN