Ted Lemon writes:
> > What are the evils of /etc/rc.d?
> 
> It's a SysVism.   SysV used to be the big evil we all railed against,
> although at this point it has pretty much faded into irrelevancy for
> many of us.   But many of us still shy away from anything SysVish.
> Somebody else here may have some legitimate technical reason why
> /etc/rc.d is a bad thing, but I have to admit that my reason for not
> liking it is strictly aesthetic - it's SysVish, and it's a pain to
> figure out if you don't know how it works.

I actually like /etc/rc.d conceptually. I think the SysV design is a
bit braindamaged, but the idea that you can make local additions to
the rc files just by dropping a file in a directory is very powerful
-- it makes package installs FAR easier.

> > Why is Linux not a real OS?
> 
> It is a real OS.   It's just not the one that most of us on this
> mailing list like to use.   The fact that it's very SysVish is
> probably part of that.

That isn't my reason for disliking Linux at all. Rather, the fact that
Linux is full of dozens of ill conceived hacks is my problem. The
ext2fs file system, for instance, doesn't write metadata out in the
proper order, leading to potentially very bad data corruption on
crashes. Kernel configuration is abysmal. Etc. The SysVness is just a
side issue to me.

Remember, there is a REASON many of us don't like System V derived
systems -- it isn't arbitrary, its because the systems legitimately
have lots of ugly warts on them. I prefer to list the warts, and
ignore where they come from.

Perry