Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d/rc.conf[.d] changes....
To: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/10/2000 01:08:43
On 8 May 2000, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
# Greywolf <email@example.com> writes:
# > 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
# in NetBSD.
Fair comment. My bad.
My other computer runs BSD