Subject: Re: "The BSD Way" [was Re: Support for ACLs]
To: Lord Isildur <email@example.com>
From: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/12/2001 01:38:40
In some email I received from Lord Isildur, sie wrote:
> > Well, the objection *I* have is that the changes - rc.d is the poster
> > child for this - make the system a great deal less pleasant for me.
> Ill agree. I was vehemently against the rc.d stuff. I keep a tarball of
> olf rc scripts and the first thing i do on a newer system is trash the
> rc.d crap and stick in real rc's again. This rc.d thing i can _only_ see
> as an attempt to appease the linux-familiar and slolaris-familiar folks who
> somehow are desperately wanted to start using netbsd. This is also a
> great example of what i see happening to the decisions in where NetBSD is
> going: a few folks decide 'how things will be', and then, regardless of any
> discussion, thats how things are declared to be.
I'll pop in once on this thread before returing it to the bit bucket.
Those people who speak *against* rc.d simply do not understand how much
easier it makes life. How many commands is it to restart samba ? What
about DNS ? Which signals are you meant to/not meant to use ? There
are so many reasons *for* rc.d it's hard to imagine not using it. The
best example I've seen is the one introduced in HP-UX 10 which the
Linux camps are making various efforts at copying. Whilst I may have
some disagreements about how ours operates, that's a minor issue.
Just quickly, I agree about the decision making progress issue you have
raised. There are two sides to this: one is you seemingly have people
being ignored and the other is unless someone makes a decision, there
will be neverending discussion. It'd be nice to see core being able to
take a role in contencious discussions but then that'd mean core getting
off its ass and doing something that the group as a whole could see.
Pigs might fly too.