Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 20:15:48 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Cc: dyson@iquest.net, wes@softweyr.com, tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: System V init (was: Linux to be deployed in Mexican schools; Where was FreeBSD?) Message-ID: <199811300115.UAA01966@y.dyson.net> In-Reply-To: <19981130105425.C831@freebie.lemis.com> from Greg Lehey at "Nov 30, 98 10:54:25 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey said: > On Sunday, 29 November 1998 at 19:16:40 -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: > > Greg Lehey said: > >>> > >>> Add additional packages, and see that BSD init ends up more > >>> and more inadequate. > >> > >> I still don't see why. We have a method to run application startup > >> and shutdown scripts already. Could you be more specific? > > > > Startup your network > > We do that already. > How's about shutdown the network or database also with init. SYSV init can already afford it. If better or finer control is needed, the SYSV init is very close to the goal. > > > or database with init? > > Why not? > At least with SYSV init you have selective control over the subsystems that you want to mess with. > > >>>>> SysV init has an established set of standards for usage of > >>>>> startup/shutdown files. It doesn't solve ALL problems, but moves > >>>>> forward, other than just staying idle. > >>>> > >>>> Sure, but as I said, that's all a question of scripts. > >>> > >>> Also, it is all a question of C-code, > >> > >> Where? > > > > SYSV-like init are available . > > Ah, that's what you mean. My question was more ``what does it take to > do this?''. > The already available SYSV-like inits. No sense in reinventing the world. > > >>> but a framework enables better organization. However SYSV-init is > >>> implemented, vendors do use it. > >> > >> I suppose there's one point there. But the only difference for > >> installing under FreeBSD would be the name of the startup file. > > > > The more your system is nonstandard, the more it will be considered > > to be nonstandard. > > Fine, once we've defined ``standard''. > SYSV. The world already has too many self-defined standards. NIH springs to mind. If the existant SYSV inits need some polishing or a minor amount of re-enginnering, and perhaps a formal policy needs to be created, then so be it. Cobbling together yet another hack scheme seems to be wasted effort and obfuscation. If SYSV init is missing some capabilities, then add them or clean that up. FreeBSD's init is very very simple, but simpler than it should be. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811300115.UAA01966>