Subject: re: the run level holy wars...
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Greg TwoTone Spiegelberg <>
List: current-users
Date: 07/31/1995 21:17:40
just for the sake of it being said, counting this message i have seen
157 messages beginning with the '/etc/default' this month.  quite funny
i think.  spoon!!!!

 +Is there anything important that you *lose* on a system with run-levels?
 +Basically, what do you lose if 'init s' is added as a synonym for
 +'kill -TERM 1'?  I can see why some people don't care for this alleged
 +feature, but I can see why some people (including myself, which makes it
 +easier) would really benefit a lot from discrete system states.  So,
 +apart from the integration effort, what's the cost to the users who don't
 +use it?
 +I guess I'm trying to see if this is something where people don't think it's
 +worth adding, or something where there's a specific piece of functionality
 +that goes away when you do it.

okay, here's my cut on at&t'ish systems... they were made for the weak
minded who are unable to understand the major differences between the normal
modes of operation and feel the need to throw more labels on top of things.

that sounded like a flame, well it was intended as such because with the
exception of IRIX's setup (/etc/config, /etc/init.d) the whole at&t'ish
crowd blows large chunks with jagged edges.  i once customized a SunOS
system's rc* to work like IRIX's.  it wasn't that major an undertaking
and made for nice cleanup of appearing/disappearing services but it
wasn't so useful that i absolutely *had* to do it.

i manage sunos, IRIX, slowaris, hp/ux, and on occasion have had the privilege
of touching a aix and a/ux (ahhhhh!!!!) systems.  setting true sunos aside
only IRIX impressed me and that because they kept /etc/exports, didn't
feel the need to rename /etc/fstab, /etc/init.d and /etc/config actually
makes sense, and they have basically kept bsd'ish type configs and
subsystems around simply because they work better than at&t'ish types.

let's face it... netbsd is _bsd_ in every true sense of the word and the
reason i, and probably most of everyone else here, like using it.  

 +BTW, can anyone explain why the !@#* rc.local is, in fact, not a local file?
 +Shouldn't it be a file which is run only if present, and which is not
 +part of the installation?  If not, why is it called ".local"?

short and sweet?  tradition.  only rc calls it so you can do whatever you
wish with it.  it's just a matter of personal style & taste.  append it
to the end of rc or add a
	if [ -f /etc/rc.local ]; then
		source /etc/rc.local
it that's what floats your boat.

in the bsd,
greg "svrX gives me the willies" spiegelberg

ps. sorry this turned into a rant/flame but i'd hate to see run levels,
    "lpscud", or any type of integration of at&t'ish styles into netbsd.
    i had no intention of starting a flame war here, these are just my
    views is all.

Greg "TwoTone" Spiegelberg                         I'm not a sysadmin                           but I play one on TV... 
#include <linux/std_disclaimer.h>