Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 05/06/2000 02:39:36
>>> From my point of view, a new startup system was proposed. Various
>>> people made comments about it. I fully believe that the general
>>> consensus was that the new system was a good thing.
>> What are you smoking? I haven't seen a general consensus stating
>> anything to that direction.
> This has been an ongoing discussion for YEARS. The general agreement
> (and if anyone ELSE disagrees with me, please come forward) has been
> that rc.d stuff is fine,
You have obviously been reading different discussions from the ones
I've seen, or (more likely) have been reading them through a selective
I have seen the issue arise periodically, and every time, there has
been a great furor of controversy, with neither side convincing the
other of anything.
> I, personally, have not found any of the arguments you or any of the
> rc.d dissenters have made to be that compelling.
Obviously. All this is doing is underscoring that there are widely
differing and strongly held opinions on both sides of the divide.
Hmm, isn't that exactly what constitutes lack of consensus?
> So by my count, that's 35 people who want some form of rc.d, and 7
> who would not like an rc.d. Let's assume I've gotten at least 5
> people on the wrong list ... that's 30 to 12. Still almost 3 to 1.
I would not call that a consensus, not by any stretch of the
I'd call that a clear majority...and as I (and others, I think) have
said, majority *isn't the point* - or else the Project should toss what
it has and start shipping Windows, or at least Linux.
> The objections that were raised were on the order of "monolithic rc
> is the way to go". How is someone suppose to compromise in the face
> of such objections?
Have you really been reading that little of what was said?
I, at least, was saying more like "monolithic rc is significantly
easier for *human* boot script maintenance".
Like anything involving subjective terms like "easier", that's at least
partially a matter of opinion. Yet in all the flap, I have seen at
most one lone message even disagreeing with it. One. (Most of the
responses on the other side of the fence have been more like "awc'mon,
it's not so bad as all that".)
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B