> Subject: Re: NetBSD master CVS tree commits

Gee, you'd think we were all AOL newbies who didn't know how to properly
change a "Subject:" header when the thread changed ...

(Nothing personal Peter, just about everyone else did it too)

Peter Svensson writes:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, matthew green wrote:
...
>> i don't see why you think it is a waste of time to support
>> a _long_ time traditional BSD syntax.  there are _many_ in
>> the BSD world who simple *like* /etc/rc.  it doesn't really
>> matter what their reasons are.
> 
> A few years back one might hve argued that the Internet, being constantly 
> connected and so on, was a bad idea, and that one should stick with 
> tried-and-true UUCP links for mail and news.

Bzzzt!  Wrong example, but thanks for playing our game!

I have a partial newsfeed to home.  How does it get there?  gzip'ped news
batches sent via UUCP-over-TCP, once an hour.  FAR more efficient use of
resources (modem link time) than keeping a steady feed going with nntplink
or nntpxmit et al.  Every hour I get 10-20 minutes worth of connect time
for the download, then the link can go down.  With the others, it will be
guaranteed to stay up all the time.

> The answer is progress.

For some of us, /etc/init.d/* /etc/rc?.d/* etc rc?.d and friends are *not*
progress.  They're a maze of twisty shell scripts and links, all unalike.
They're "System V" when I want an OS that says "Bee Ess Dee" in it.  (And I
deal with both every day at work - so it's not like I don't/can't/won't
deal with them.)

Call me when FreeBSD and BSD/OS all support /etc/init.d/* and all in the
same exact manner as NetBSD proposals to do same.  These divergent strains
are *not* good for the future of *BSD; they're divisive and fragmented.
Certain interfaces should remain standard across the *BSD platforms, not
"Well everybody else does it one way but NetBSD does it the SVR4 way".
Where does this stuff end?  Should we just become NetPOSIX and be done with
it?  Oh wait, that's called "Linux" ...

	- Greg