Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:10:32 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Cc: adrian@ubergeeks.com, rssh@grad.kiev.ua, grog@lemis.com, 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: <199811301510.KAA02669@y.dyson.net> In-Reply-To: <19981130145803.I9226@follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Nov 30, 98 02:58:03 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund said:
>
> The SysV approach ("symlink hell" and "let's play
> mix-the-os-and-the-apps") is not really a good solution to this.
> Those people that have managed SysV style boxes (and I never have)
> tell me you regularly have to re-number a bunch of scripts because
> you're out of slots to get the order you want. Besides, the SysV
> approach is a de-nomralization - it loose the information on what has
> to run before what, and just store the final order. Computing the
> final order from a normalized representation is cheap, and it allow
> replacements to indicate exactly how they are to run. Overall, it
> seems (to me) to be a better infrastructure.
>
The problem with the current structure is the single file (or
small group of single files) that are not easily seperable. The default
BSD configuration is pretty much a monolithic morass. I don't like
a terrible morass of multiple files either. However, the current
argument is similar to structured programming vs. excessive goto
programming (or programming in traditional, non structured basic.)
As released, the monolithic scheme is okay, but systems don't stay
the way that they are when released from an OS vendor.
With a proper structure, there is flexibility. The current rc
setup isn't on the surface very flexible and is overly monolithic.
Additionally, the more that "special tweaks" need to be done for a
software port, the more there is cost for support of an OS. IMO, it
is best to look like a predominant market player. Purely technical
discussions end up being continually tweaked and tuned. I am suggesting
a normalization to a market "standard." On the technical merits, this
discussion can last forever, because there are lots and lots of
technical solutions.
There is the /usr/local/etc/rc.d thing, but that is a superficial
attempt to look similar to the "standard", but doesn't really perform
the functions of it. I suspect that a "really nice" rc scheme could
be layered on top of the "standard" scheme, just like a "really nice"
rc scheme could be layered on top of the BSD scheme. The question is,
just why not be compatible?
--
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?199811301510.KAA02669>