I always hope that logic and rationality prevail ozitraveller but the problem with sense is that it is anything but common - if you want proof read that whole Ian Jackson post. He comes off to me like a spurned female rather than an adult making a professional decision.
In the post you linked to I was struck by these paragraphs:
One of the points that I think may have been obscured in the discussion,
but which is important to highlight, is that basically all parties have
agreed that Debian will adopt large portions of systemd. systemd is an
umbrella project that includes multiple components, some more significant
than others. Most of those components are clearly superior to anything we
have available now on Linux platforms and will be used in the distribution
In other words, this debate is not actually about systemd vs. upstart in
the most obvious sense. Rather, the question, assuming one has narrowed
the choices to those two contenders, is between adopting all the major
components of systemd including the init system, or adopting most of the
major components of systemd but replacing the init system with upstart.
Either way, we'll be running udev, logind, some systemd D-Bus services,
and most likely timedated and possibly hostnamed for desktop environments.
I think this changes the nature of the discussion in some key ways. We're
not really talking about choosing between two competing ecosystems.
Rather, we're talking about whether or not to swap out a core component of
an existing integrated ecosystem with a component that we like better.
I think I had read this before but not sure I "got" it. So conceptually I am imagining one of my team members coming to me and saying:
1. We have a rival solution that has some nice features but it also has some clear cut disadvantages to our in house solution. But it's no problem because even though they have been working on it for 3 years and haven't addressed those issues they are trivial to address and they will after we buy it.
2. Oh by the way the solution that we have in house is better and adds a lot more and also is an integrated solution. In fact, even if we select the flawed rival we will keep all the integrated stuff from the in house solution and the flawed rival will rework their stuff to work with the innovative stuff from our in house team. But the in house solution isn't portable to other 'nix's and even though they say that it can be addressed at some point I think it yet they won't. The rival soltuion won't dove tail as well as a fully integrated solution would but it will be trivial to fix and they will do so after we buy it.
3. One more thing, I know all current systems use parallel daemons and IPv6 has been around for years (as have sockets) but they didn't write those into their rival solution. But it's trivial and they will do so after we buy it.
4. Oh and one more little thing. In order to accept this rival solution they want us to sign an agreement that all our contributors license their code through them and of course in case of disputes over ownership I would guess they would win since they hold the licensing and I know that is a violation of our founding principles but it is trivial and they say that maybe they would look at reviewing it after we buy it.
5. BTW the in house solution was worked out by a large portion of our community and has been accepted by some of our most loyal members of the community and the rival is a small group that operates behind a corporate logo and we really don't have any influence or input directly into what they do and they haven't even named a project lead but that is trivial and I am sure they will fix it after we buy it.
6. So in conclusion I have decided that we will swap out that portion with the rival teams because the guys who do the in house team didn't accept my suggestions and I don't like them they are hard to work with and they picked on me and took my lunch money.
After I told the guy to clean out his desk I would probably start over. I mean really this whole thing is just surreal to me. Why is there any discussion? What strikes me in reading these is that the guys who support Upstart either have no technical support for their positions (it's always about response times and niceties or in the case of Steve its some obscure point that no one cares about). The systemd supporters give facts, details about where systemd is better etc. and actual processes they went through in detail to examine the differences and how they came to the conclusion. It's a little Wizard of Ozish "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
I really have nothing to add and guess at this point I am just venting my frustration. In a way it's like watching a friend die on the operating table for no reason. You can clearly see the doctor making mistakes and he is just cavalierly going along. I hope I am wrong and there is an upset here but I am preparing for the grieving process just the same. My apologies if this is the same stuff over again. I did at least try to make some new points. Not that it matters.