On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Yaro Kasear <yaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. your right, it isn't any different; it's equally pointless. > 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. > 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. so what if they wrote it... Ubuntu has contributed to the community in many ways, please respect them. you are making a false connection. Upstart != Ubuntu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies [ from my previous links (Lennart) ] "To begin with, let me emphasize that I actually like the code of Upstart, it is very well commented and easy to follow. It's certainly something other projects should learn from (including my own). That being said, I can't say I agree with the general approach of Upstart." > Arch's current init system is perfectly fine, it's simple, easy to work with, > flexible, and its fast enough. please see my previous post because sysvinit provides nothing. you are talking about bash. > 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. run levels are 99% pointless constructs. even Arch barely cares about them. > Don't crappify Arch just > because you miss Ubuntu or think Arch should jump on some misguided bandwagon > that takes Linux ass-backwards. please actually _read_ my posts and the links provided... then simmer down. i am full-force behind Systemd for several reasons i clearly outlined, not Upstart, though i commend Upstart for the initiative. please contribute quality information or leave the conversation to the professional developers/administrators among use, not those who can't do anything but bang out a POS 17 line bash script. C Anthony
