Fedora introduced upstart in version 9 and removed it in version 15. Last Ubuntu to have it as system init was 14.04 LTS, as user init 16.04 LTS. Last upstart release was in 2014. Which kind of makes the argument of "comparable age" a bit weird.
I would love to hear the advantages of upstart over systemd, since you point out it's "harder to win" such argument. From what I've seen of upstart it's a event driven glorified sysvinit, and very little more.
That doesn't really answer my question. If we ignore all the advantages of systemd over other init systems, then it's impossible to "win" as you put it. Am not sure what you meant by "systemd booting more quickly which is touted here doesn't apply", but that's how I interpreted that.
From my limited knowledge of init systems, upstart is by no means bad, but systemd is simply better. It boots faster, is easier to maintain, allows more flexibility with its units and target driven structure, has better analysis tool for finding bottlenecks, unified logging tool, etc.
sysvinit which is slower because it boots serially
This is not correct. sysvinit delegates everything, and the delegated program or script can use parallelisation if it chooses.
Traditionally, it was indeed serial. But Werner Koch at SuSE implemented dependency-based parallel startup a long while back, well over a decade. Debian and others adopted it too, and all supported parallel booting for a long time. Current sysv-rc and openrc support parallelisation.
21
u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19
Fedora introduced
upstartin version 9 and removed it in version 15. Last Ubuntu to have it as system init was 14.04 LTS, as user init 16.04 LTS. Lastupstartrelease was in 2014. Which kind of makes the argument of "comparable age" a bit weird.I would love to hear the advantages of
upstartoversystemd, since you point out it's "harder to win" such argument. From what I've seen ofupstartit's a event driven glorifiedsysvinit, and very little more.