[NTLUG:Discuss] Startup system types

[Chris Cox]

On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 08:55 -0500, Wayne Walker wrote:...
> So I'd say:
> 
>   Lagging and old distros use Sys V; new, modern distros use upstart.
> 
> I didn't check for any other distros, just the main 4.
> 

Or, one could equally say, distros interested in inserting instability
into their distributions use upstart and those needing stability
continue to use sysvinit.

Remember that ALL enterprise level commercial software available for
Linux ASSUMES a sysvinit.  And remember that those guys don't like
change.  Not saying that moving to upstart is a bad idea... just that
you can't say updstart == "modern" and "no upstart" == "lagging and
old".  With that said, upstart provides a way of handling the old
sysvinit style scripts.... but still.... not sure if too much fringe
case testing has been done.

So, there are REASONS for not switching.... change can mean risk.

If RHEL does make the switch (it's in the RHEL6 beta), it could apply
pressure on the commercial vendors... but last time Red Hat made a
radical shift, they LOST a lot of enterprise support (the RHAS 3 to RHAS
4 debacle), Red Hat is still dealing with this curse which is why they
now offer super-extended support extension...

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/extended_lifecycle_support/

You'll just have to trust me that it was created STRICTLY because of the
RHAS 3 to RHAS 4 debacle.

So... change CAN be a good thing... it can also hurt in ways that are
not necessarily important to an all FOSS shop, but that enterprises have
to be concerned about.  RHEL6 may be the agent of change with regards to
init... we'll see.