On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:53:44 pm C Anthony Risinger wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Yaro Kasear <yaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 04:29:02 am Laurent Carlier wrote: > >> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 11:16:41, Jelle van der Waa a écrit : > >> > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 14:50 +0700, Madhur Ahuja wrote: > >> > > >> > If you want the devs to get interested in a new feature, atleast > >> > provide them with something to test and with arguments, cause you > >> > gave none... > >> > >> And "ubuntu use it" is not enough as an argument :-) > > > > In my opinion: "Ubuntu uses it" is a very strong reason NOT to use > > Upstart. > > you are trolling? comments related to Ubuntu or their competence are > wholly unrelated and highly irrelevant. > > i would guess that many of Arch's users began with Ubuntu, and then > decided they were too l33t and wanted to try something more bare metal > (probably to learn/grow); myself included. > > please try to restrict information output to quality discussion of > sysvinit, upstart, systemd, or other init solutions and their merits. > > C Anthony No, I'm not trolling. I don't see how my statement is really all that different than all the other one-line "god, I hope not" responses in this thread. I just gave my reasons, that's the only difference between my post and theirs. And comments about Ubuntu and their competence are entirely relevant to this discussion, as Upstart is entirely their creation. Would you rather I talk about people who had nothing to do with its code? The Ubuntu devs are behind Upstart, they're not that great at what they do when it comes to the actual system side of Ubuntu. Therefore why should we consider Upstart an improvement. How was that not relevant? It was entirely about the quality of Upstart as it was about the quality of Upstart's developers. And any programmer worth his salt could tell you that if you suck at programming or even just design, your software is going to suck, too. You may not LIKE that I pointed this out about Ubuntu and Upstart, but it is absolutely 100% relevant. I was one of those users who switched from Ubuntu to Arch. I didn't do it because I felt I was too l33t but because Ubuntu's many flaws started getting to me. Upstart was one of those flaws. As I said before being falsely accused of being a troll by someone who couldn't make the connection between Ubuntu's developers and Upstart: Arch's current init system is perfectly fine, it's simple, easy to work with, flexible, and its fast enough. I can EASILY set up entirely new bootlevels with SysV on Arch (I did it with XBMC and I bet you my next lunch Upstart can't do it.), something Upstart goes out of its way to avoid. So I'll say it again: Arch switching to Upstart by default is a stupid idea. You want to use Upstart? Put a PKGBUILD on the AUR and use that. Don't crappify Arch just because you miss Ubuntu or think Arch should jump on some misguided bandwagon that takes Linux ass-backwards.
