Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/03/2000 22:29:50
On Wed, 3 May 2000, der Mouse wrote:
# Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 02:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
# From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
# To: email@example.com
# Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
# > I would also like to note that there is a possibility that I am going
# > to be the only one to post to this thread in this manner , since
# > people of my bent were told by Luke that any form of "re-hashing"
# > would be summarily deleted. I realize why he did this, but because
# > he did so, the only people who have so far posted are pro-rc.d*,
# There's a much simpler reason why only pro-rc.d stuff has shown up: the
# people who don't like rc.d have been told, about as clearly as
# possible, that NetBSD is not interested in supporting us. Why should
# we throw good effort after bad?
# > Luke actually said something like 'Please post constructive
# > critisism, and not flame"
# Which is not an unreasonable request. The problem with it in this
# regard is that the pro-rc.d people are unwilling or unable to
# acknowledge that the anti-rc.d people are worth supporting (or at least
# that's what _I_ got out of the discussion last time around). Thus,
# about the only constructive criticism we can offer - "we need it to
# support this thing that it presently doesn't" - is viewed as nothing
# more than pointless repetitive griping opposing Progress. And after a
# while, there really _isn't_ anything we can say that hasn't already
# been beaten to death several times over.
# In short, we were told to go away, so we've gone away. Where's the
No. Speaking for myself, I'm NOT going away about this one.
rc.d was one thing. rc.conf.d to the exclusion of rc.conf is very,
At the risk of repeating myself, I can handle having the scripts split.
I can NOT handle having the rc.conf information forcibly split. It's
a solution looking for a problem.
I encourage anyone with an opinion to speak up and show that we are
not just a miniscule splinter faction. We are not a minority,
necessarily, on this issue, and I am going to do the best I can to
see that we do not get railroaded.
# > I am concerned about this because when a small group of people who
# > are all enthusiastic about a particular concept get together, they
# > tend to brainstorm with each other, and not offer viewpoints that
# > people who are skeptical might.
# If you really want to go into this again, please, before you throw more
# kerosene on the fire, go read the tech-userlevel archives back about
# the time rc was split up. It's not more than a few months ago, and it
# will probably enlighten you about why you haven't seen contributions
# from anti-rc.d people.
Speak up, folks. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I agree that this latest go-round is nothing short of "if you
don't agree, we don't care about the technical reasons for it
because we've circumvented them all, so go away."
Well, I don't know 'bout y'all, but I am *not* going away.
I just wish my fscking DSL would get its collective sh!t
together so I could actually offer what I intend.
BSD: Perpetual performance!