[ncolug] Upstart was Re: upgrade fever
- From: Mike <mikeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ncolug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:18:49 -0400
Chuck Stickelman wrote:
>> Someday I need to figure out just how Ubuntu has moved away from init.
>> Upstart is the name. It's supposed to be faster, more flexible, robust.
>> Can't say that it's been any of those on this machine.
>>
>>
> Wow! Doing away with init is a big deal! It should be done as an
> "init=" entry at the boot loader. Anything other than that would force
> a unique kernel build which should be avoided and condemned at all costs.
>
> I'm not sure how much faster init should be... It's a pretty
> light-weight program. Also, how much more flexible does an initial
> program have to be? I'm not seeing the advantage. I think this could
> be just one more reason why Ubuntu should be avoided...
>
Using upstart doesn't force you to use a certain kernel. It is
compatible with init and its boot parameters for the most part. I
believe that I was still using "old world" ideas to try and recover more
modern day issues. The busybox shell if certainly part of initramfs.
That at least I understand and have worked with many times. The real
frustration was not landing in a *real* single user mode where I could
just fix it and not have to manually bring up all the devices by hand.
If I wanted that, Solaris with Veritas or even their own RAID could give
me that. :)
This could be a good meeting topic as I've seen reference to upstart in
Debian testing and Fedora. Surely it's in use elsewhere.
--
Mike
http://www.bellyacresoh.com
To unsubscribe send to ncolug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
Subject field.
Other related posts:
- » [ncolug] Upstart was Re: upgrade fever
