>Whose bright idea was it to start using ugly sysV style rc.d directories??
>that is one of the most disgusting things i can think of!

That was my reaction when I first encountered this arrangement years
ago.  Since then I've reversed my position, and prefer this scheme:

o It greatly aids modularization -- if I want to distribute software in
discrete chunks, eg. with Sun's package format, Linux RPM, etc..  By
having seperate files for each package's startup, one doesn't have to
mess with the tricky business of having an installation/deinstallation
script screw around with trying to edit out lines in the middle of the
rc file.  

o Checksum monitors like tripwire or tiger are more usable this way

o Package-specific shutdown procedures can be implemented - can't do
that in any reasonable fashion with just a startup rc file.

o If there's an error or typo in one package's invocation, it doesn't
hose everything after, as happens with a monolithic rc file.

>I thoughti was safe from the awful sysV-like world by using NetBSD!

Now, if that screwy print system crept in, that'd be a different story.