Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: /etc/rc, /etc/init.d/*, ...
To: Luke Mewburn <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/01/1999 09:49:09
>> in an effort to not piss anyone off (too much) there's too much fence
>> sitting being done. I don't mind the /etc/rc still being supported
>> (the everything in one script version) but the rest is of concern.
>> There's an /etc/rcX.d which gets used sometimes and an /etc/init.d
>> which also gets used sometimes. It's possible to have a /etc/rcX.d
>> populated but then ignored by a script which independantly interrogates
>> scripts in /etc/init.d. From a featurism point of view, sure, it's
>> great that we've got all these features, but I think these two are
>> competing with each other and offer no real long term benefit. We
>> need to pick one and go with it. I think this is trying to be everything
>> to everyone and ultimately we'll lose.
>but you're asking for stuff that's effectively fence sitting as well!
i don't think it's fence sitting...so i'll have to pop in here.
for a netbsd system, "kill 1" will always return the sysadmin to a
single user system with *nothing* else running. for a solaris system
"shutdown -iS -g0 -y" will possibly return you to a single user system
with nothing running. you'll certainly be at the single user run
level, but there might be tons of stuff running because the moron
administering the stupid operating system as adding scripts to the rc
directories where they needed to be started without a mind for
shutting them down at a later point.
linux (redhat, at least) attempts to gloss over this problem by
providing a nice gui "run level editor" so that one can pick and
choose from the six run levels easily enough and make sure that what's
started is stopped in the right places, but with *no regard for
attempting to enforce any sanity on the situation*. it just makes it
easier to screw up your machine by using your mouse.
since we don't have "runlevels" (and neither do we need them, imho),
what assurance do i have that this can't (or won't be able to) happen
to netbsd systems now, with this new scheme?
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."