On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Arjan van de Ven <ar...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 9/18/2010 8:46 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> systemd has design issues which have to be hashed out obviously (Fedora >>> is >>> punting on it for F14 for a reason) >>> upstart has license/contribution issues which are not pretty >> >> Fedora is putting it on F14 because F13 was practically out when >> systemd was announced. > > Fedora is NOT using systemd in 14 ..only in 15 maybe
Ah, you said puNting it. Anyway the ditching is a _very_recent development (3 days ago): https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Features/systemd&diff=197386&oldid=190419 However, the point is that before that, they considered it ready, as it's in F14 alpha[1]. Everything points out that the issues would be resolved. >> If you want speed, you need a customized boot process in traditional > > yes I know a thing or two about boot speed.... so far MeeGo is one of the > fastest booting Linux OSes in the market > >> init systems (sysvinit, upstart), because everything gets started, so >> then you need to pick and choose what really gets started, and when. > > that's regurgitating systemd propaganda... but that does not make it true ;) It's common sense; in my Fedora laptop I don't use cups, but it's started anyway. If I want to optimize the boot time for speed, I need to manually turn off the services I'm not really using. Presumably MeeGo is doing the same. However, if the process is not started at all (with systemd), then I don't need to turn it off. >> But systemd turns the problem around; nothing gets started, unless >> it's really used, so there's less need to customize (if any). > > systemd turns it into a worst case problem unfortunately, because now you > hit the start latency ALL THE TIME. > this is what I meant with design issues; systemd's design isn't going to > give you a super fast boot. Now > maybe they'll fix it sometime in the future.... but today it makes systemd > entirely uninteresting for booting fast. > > yes it'll boot faster than the really really slow existing Fedora, but > that's not an interesting benchmark point. > the benchmark point should be the state of the art, not the worst of the > industry. I don't know what you call "state of the art", is it a highly tweaked sequence of events? I can get the same on my Fedora system if I want, but that would require a lot of effort. And that's the point; constantly tweaking the services to start at the right time simply doesn't scale. With systemd such tweaking is not necessary. >>> It's ok to have multiple competing technologies; that's one of the ways >>> innovation happens in open source.. competition. >> >> Sure, but we are not using any, so I don't see why we should assume >> that upstart will be used. I think both approaches need to be >> carefully and equally considered. > > oh trust me we are looking at all options, very very carefully. That's why I > said that upstart currently is more likely than systemd, > but frankly, for 1.2 we might also just stick with what we have now.. it > works and is fast. Well, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't trust anyone's word without evidence. A document explaining such detailed analysis with hard numbers and preferably the tests to generate that data would be very welcome. That's what I would consider careful. [1] http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/News/Fedora-14-Alpha-Released -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
