Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d/rc.conf[.d] changes....
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
Date: 05/08/2000 20:43:28
Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> # >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".
> Okay, I was being a bit pessimistic. But given that other gunk we have
> shoehorned in recently, it really only seems to follow logically that
> we're going to eventually shoehorn that in as well.
Don't be ridiculous.
I'm one of the people that pushed for rc.d, because I needed it. I
have had to hack in rc.d's under OSes for years to deal with the needs
of automated management of hundreds of machines. I wrote rcorder
because I thought the System V rc.d mechanism was braindead in the way
it ordered things. That alone should tell you we aren't trying to
follow System V in some blind way. I do not accept runlevels or
support them, and I suspect few enough people do that they'll never be
Perry Metzger email@example.com
"Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."