[04:24] <Jordan_U> So, how long do you think until Ubuntu switches to systemd?
[09:34] <AlanBell> systemd is just upstart reinvented isn't it?
[09:35] <AlanBell> because upstart was written by Canonical
[09:54] <popey> some argue systemd is technically superior.
[09:55] <AlanBell> probably is
[09:57] <popey> I'm unconvinced it's NiH
[09:58] <AlanBell> but would Canonical be able to switch to it?
[09:58] <AlanBell> or is there too much emotional investment in upstart?
[09:59] <AlanBell> like bzr/git or unity/gnome-shell
[10:02] <popey> i dont think its emotional investment which prevents us going bzr -> git, or unity -> gnome shell
[10:02] <popey> same for upstart -> systemd
[10:02] <popey> for unity there's the belief it's better, for our long term plans
[10:02] <popey> for bzr I suspect it's because we have nobody to do the migration work
[10:11] <Jordan_U> popey: What do you think is preventing a move from upstart to systemd?
[10:19] <Jordan_U> One thing I find odd is that while there are many detailed technical arguments given for systemd over upstart, I haven't been able to find any equivelant defense of upstart over systemd.
[10:22] <Jordan_U> The closest thing I've seen (and it's not very close at all) is from http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1121 . Did the Ubuntu Foundations team mentioned by Mark make a public report on what they deemed were the technical (and social) problems with systemd, and the technical (and social) advantages of upstart?
[10:28] <popey> I've not seen such a public report. I've seen it discussed on ubuntu-devel iirc