Subject: Re: Another changer, another changer problem
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 10/14/1998 09:44:52
> You may dislike SysV based on your experience. I like it based on mine -
> which includes not only Unix and NT, but also 15 years as an MVS systems
Compared to NT and possibly compared to MVS, I'd like SysV too.
I like BSD a whole lot more.
> The NetBSD mechanisms for startup configuration are either inflexible
> or require modification of system files. If you want to add
> something at other than the places that hooks are provided, then
> you're back to modifying system files. The SysV mechanism, OTOH, is
> both flexible and maintainable.
...where if you want to add something at other than the places that
hooks are provided, then you're back to modifying system files or
I see no significant difference between modifying a system file (by
which you presumably mean the likes of /etc/rc) and modifying a system
directory (/etc/init.d, /etc/rc2.d, etc). In either case, you have to
keep careful notes elsewhere of what you did so as to be able to roll
it forward next time you do an update that destroys your local mods.
> [D]rawing a line between what the admin's supposed to go modify and
> what the system needs to run properly, and enforcing it strictly,
> would also help quite a bit.
I've used such systems. I dislike them. The vendor's idea of what I'm
"supposed to go modify" rarely (never, in my experience) includes
enough flexibility to get the behavior I want - and I am *not* willing
to put up with being told that the vendor knows better than I how my
system is supposed to act. Not from SGI, not from Sun, and most
definitely not from NetBSD.
That said, I do believe in drawing such a line. But I believe it has
to be drawn by the admin in question, not by someone at the vendor.
Otherwise it'll be drawn in the wrong place, far too much of the time.
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B