Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
To: Mason Loring Bliss <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/19/2000 15:21:57
I still think /usr/local should be a separate space. It's easier to find
the third-party stuff that way.
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
# FWIW, a real-world note: Just about everything at work runs on NetBSD,
# and I was quite happy with everything up until rc.d was implemented and
# I started using it at home and on a couple newer boxes at work. Now the
# non-rc.d systems seem somewhat cumbersome to use as compared with the
# rc.d systems. :) I personally like the idea of easily machine-managed
# rc.conf information, incidentally, even though I like the convenience
# of the central rc.conf file. However, I fully expect our the upcoming
# virc implementation to be pleasurable to use...
Ah, here we go, having it shoehorned in again. You're talking like it's
going to happen, again without any thought as to what really works.
virc is a solution looking for a problem, and I think it's completely
unnecessary bloatware which has no business on a real OS. What will
you propose next? A registry?
# , and I expect that I'll
# start to dislike the monolithic rc.conf after a while of using the
# distributed version. (Already I can enjoy the prospect of scp-ing
# around config files.)
# The thing to remember is that this is a volunteer project, and that
# people want to use NetBSD simply because they want to use NetBSD. The
# full likelihood is that the system will become nicer and nicer to use,
# while always allowing space for folks who want the traditional methods.
But I don't see that virc/rc.conf.d are allowing said space for said folks.
The attitude presented thus far has been "This is the new way; if you like
the old way, you can just kiss off and be a dinosaur somewhere else."
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. rc.conf ain't broke.
BSD: Resistance is futile! You will be supported.