Subject: Re: take 2; which way should we go for /etc/rc...
To: John Nemeth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
Date: 12/08/1999 08:58:11
firstname.lastname@example.org (John Nemeth) writes:
> On Dec 2, 10:01am, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> } On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:54:12 -0500 (EST)
> } der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
> } > >> f) Full SYSV style run levels.
> } > > IMHO, this is the best solution.
> } >
> } > And IMO, it's one of the worst.
> } >
> } > We're BSD, dammit. If you want to go start NetSysV and do this, I'll
> } > fully support your project.
> } Unfortunately, I don't think "We're BSD, dammit" is a compelling argument.
> I do.
So does that mean we should go back to pcc (or gcc 1.39+++), old
config and static interrupt configuration, monolithic non-configurable
/etc/rc, completely separate hardware support for different machines,
etc, etc? That's the `technology' that `BSD' shipped with.
As Frank said, if you want BSD, go get a VAX and put 4.3 on it. Or a
HP 9000/300 and run 4.4-Lite.
It's precisely that sort of `no, we must do what BSD did' attitude
that puts the `legacy' in `carrying on the BSD legacy'.