Talk:Upstart (software)

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linux Mid‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Upstart has actually replaced cron?

I failed to find where Upstart has replaced cron, atd, anacron and inetd Ubuntu Fiesty and Gibbon. I only see it has replaced /etc/inittab and sysvinit functionality. Can someone enlighten me on this? --KJRehberg 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't yet; the person who edited the page to remove that claim is quite correct. Colin Watson (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upstart 0.5

Upstart 0.5 is the next expected release and SJR has posted three long emails about its roadmap. I don't feel there is too much value to incorporate anything into the article yet, better to wait until after the fact.. -- Sverdrup (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what's it for?

The article does a good job on who, what, where and when, what's missing is the "why". What's the motivation for this project? Why is it supposed to be an improvement over the traditional way of doing it?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom (talk • contribs) 09:47, 12 September 2009

Indeed. The references provide good rationales; I'll try and crib one together. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jessie and systemd

Would be nice if wikipedia dosn't write articles about events in the future. Also Poettering and many newspapers think different, I think the poll is still running. (Two of seven days.) The CT will publish it if they are ready and even than the GR is allowed to change this decision. I think using the offitial site for decitions of the CT ([1]) would be the best in this case. (And nothing is published there up to now.) I hope I understood the process at the debian TC right. --Fabiwanne (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's exactly the same as my own thinking while reviewing (and cleaning up) that recent addition. Should we delete the "Debian chooses systemd" statement, and wait until the voting is officially closed? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it. And since it were only a 2 links which was added I thought it's no problem to wait the week for undoing it. --Fabiwanne (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually reverted too much deleting later edits unrelated to the premature conclusion on jessie's init system, so I've reverted your revert, and handpicked the parts to be deleted/changed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tech-ctte has decided, until a (potential GR overrules this), systemd is the chosen default Cálestyo (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the provided reference is quite blurry to me, sounds somewhat like a bunch of weasel words, so I've reverted your edits. Any chances, please, for a better reference? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not going to prove to you, that the sky is blue… Bdale Garbee is the chairman of the tech-ctte, which put the final casting vote at the very reference that I gave. So live with that or let the article contain outdated information. Cálestyo (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with much worse things, but a brief explanation never hurts. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you like that https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/02/msg00005.html more... o.O Cálestyo (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adoption status

I've reordered the adoption section a bit. What matters here is really only who supports / uses it per default and who not... especially it doesn't matter a lot whether such distro moved to systemd afterwards or not.

Further, I think it's not neutral to include dead (Maemo) or "special" distros (chrome, or WebOS which is nowadays a Linux for TVs o.O) in the list of such that use it per default... Cálestyo (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's debatable. For example, Maemo has been officially dead for a long time, but many people are still using their community-supported (to a certain degree) N900 phones. Maybe the solution would be to describe such examples as no longer maintained, or with something similar? Then again, let's see what the other editors think about it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu is taking it on after 14.04, per Mark Shuttleworth: [2] - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Upstart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Upstart (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Chrome OS and Chromium OS still use Upstart then is it really dead?

The article's lead says Upstart is no longer maintained but the article says Google's Chrome OS and Chromium OS still use it. Are they using an old 2014 version or have they updated Upstart, in which case it's not really dead even if it's only Google who still uses and updates it. What's the deal? Let's update the article to be clear what Google's use of Upstart is and clarify if it really is no longer being developed, even by Google. 108.239.8.149 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot really contribute to such a discussion without primary sources. You can check the upstart integration in Google's git repos. They do pull an old version and apply patches on top of that. IIRC they have not added new patches in a long time. Furthermore some newer devices may be using systemd in place of Upstart. Furthermore I maintain a fork of upstart called startup (rebranded to escape trademark concerns).

CameronNemo (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]