Subject: Re: What about startup scripts??
To: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
From: Greywolf <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/30/2000 11:04:27
On 30 Dec 2000, Nathan J. Williams wrote:

# Date: 30 Dec 2000 13:14:51 -0500
# From: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
# To: Dominik Rothert <>
# Cc: Frederick Bruckman <>,
#      Al B. Snell <>, Hubert Feyrer <>,
# Subject: Re: What about startup scripts??
# <> (Dominik Rothert) writes:
# > Hm, I don't think that is a good idea. We should distinguish between
# > packages and system. If we start to mess up /etc with files based on
# > packages... No, sorry.
# The notion of distinguishing files belonging to "packages" from files
# belonging to the "system" has been going out of style for some time,
# in modern operating system administration. In part, the very notion of
# "system" is fragmenting, and becoming simply the set of packages that
# the OS vendor supplies.
# Progress consists of blurring the distinction, not enhancing it. Why
# treat packages like second-class citzens?

That way lies Linux, and it's one of the things I *hate* about it.
By inferring the above, why separate out X11 stuff?

Packages go in /usr/pkg or /usr/local (my preference).
X stuff goes in /usr/X11R6 or, more simply, /usr/X11.

Linux just sort of conglomerates everything with the *possible* exception
of the X stuff (although I've run into X stuff being put in there as well!),
and to me, it's all so spaghettified that I could pour sauce over Linux and
call it lunch.

Everything that happens to NetBSD to make it less BSD-like is a nail in
its coffin.  What's going to be the differentiating factor once all these
gratuitous changes are put in place?

#         - Nathan

*BSD: penguin flesh never tasted so good.