Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d/rc.conf[.d] changes....
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Simon J. Gerraty <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/08/2000 16:59:45
>By the way, it's pretty evident to this wolf that runlevels are going to
>enter the picture.
Sorry but now you are being silly. In all the years that rc vs rc.d
was debated the _only_ time run-leveles were mentioned was when anti
rc.d people said: "I don't want rc.d because run-levels suck".
Those of us who have implemented rc.d on NetBSD, SunOS etc and used it
_years_, have done so without run-levels. They are two very separate
Oh and init.d is not unique to IRIX. rc.conf.d (or equiv) maybe but
init.d (or equiv) is used in virtually every rc.d implementation -
because it works. But please don't confuse the fact that IRIX may have
init.d with the fact that it has any other miscelaneous feature.
One does not mandate the other.
It is bogus FUD like your statements about run-levels that have helped
drag this debate on and on. Please stop it.
BTW if you do persist with baseless arguments like this don't complain
if people tune out.
Simon J. Gerraty <email@example.com>
#include <disclaimer> /* imagine something _very_ witty here */