To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
If that were the only problem then any one of the init replacements created in the last 15 years would be an improvement.
Speed is secondary. An init replacement primarily needs to solve initialization sequencing. Building an init sequence in which the appropriate things are started at appopriate times, and not before other things that may be needed first, is a highly non-trivial process. Upstart and systemd try to solve this problem and the different approaches define more than anything else the differences between the systems.
After that there are some nice to have things which are lacking on linux. Here I primarily mean service control; it's embarrassing that Windows does this better (yes, better). Both upstart and systemd try to address this in fairly similar ways.
Both (but systemd in particular) do other things, of course, which I consider nonessential but still worthwhile and improvements on current systems. I have to give a great deal of credit to Lennart for not trying to solve just one tiny technical problem but aiming for a holistic approach, while still not greatly violating the *nix philosophy.





Member since:
2006-11-14
This article talks about upstart and systemd as competing solutions to a problem but did not identify the problem. What is the problem with the current linux init system that necessitated creation of these two new systems?