On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, matthew green wrote:

> you're missing the point that some people _DON'T_ want the
> init.d stuff _at all_.  i believe that my proposal allows
> both people to `do what they want'.  i don't agree with
> you about your second point. it _IS_ a problem.  how do
> you _know_ what people don't mind ``munging'' around in
> /etc/rc.local use ?
> 
> in the case where, say, a user wants the `bsd' method.  he
> then realises he _can_ use packages, by using the `sysV'
> method, implimented in rc or rc.local, where ever you happen
> to want it (perhaps at the start or end of rc.local).

I don't see why the equivalent of rc.local could not be put in the init.d 
directory.

The two structures (rc.local vs. init.d) can each emulate one another. 
Changing the system behaviour is a lot easier for the people with good 
knowledge of unix. For the beginner the init.d system seems a lot easier 
to use, and should IMHO therefore be the default. If you are used to 
rc.local style configurations you probably know how to make it work your 
way. 

Peter