| |||||||||||||
GNOME and/or systemdGNOME and/or systemdPosted Nov 2, 2012 17:24 UTC (Fri) by intgr (subscriber, #39733)In reply to: GNOME and/or systemd by dlang Parent article: GNOME and/or systemd
> upstart existed before systemd, shame on the systemd people for creating a new project
Yes. But Poettering seriously studied and considered Upstart. The design of Upstart didn't allow what he wanted to achieve: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
I believe he said in one of the systemd presentations that he did approach Upstart developers with his ideas, but they did not reach an agreement.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME and/or systemd Posted Nov 2, 2012 17:54 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
look at what I was replying to. The person was criticizing people for working with upstart instead of joining the existing systemd project and just modifying that instead.
I was pointing out that by that by that logic, the systemd people should never have started systemd, they should have joined one of the other existing projects and modified that instead.
In other words, stop criticizing people for working on the project that they think is right, or you will find that the same criticism works against you as well.
I don't think that there's any niche left where there isn't _some_ existing project that could be enhanced to fit whatever you want to have done. There can be very good reasons for wanting to do something new instead of joining and modifying the existing project (which can include the fact that the devs of the existing project may not want the changes you want)
GNOME and/or systemd Posted Nov 5, 2012 2:28 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> look at what I was replying to. The person was criticizing people for working with upstart instead of joining the existing systemd project and just modifying that instead.
What I criticise is essentially not the upstart developers' actions, but their motivation. There are two strong indications for NIH syndrome: the fact that upstart was developed at Canonical/Ubuntu, and the fact that various distros have or are considering to switch away from upstart in favour of systemd. The latter is a strong hint that there are significant technical benefits to doing so, as switching the init system is a fair amount of work. Creating a new project is fine if you have good technical reasons for doing so. But if you go your own way "just because", then that just makes everybody's lives harder.
Too much unity leads to stagnation and monopolies, too much diversity leads to chaos, bikeshedding and infighting. Neither is good for the linux community as a whole, and we should work on finding a middle ground. Today, we're way too far on the bikeshedding side of that fine line, and I happen to think that upstart is one part of that problem.
|
|||||||||||||