From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Apr 26 12:43:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA05193 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phoenix.volant.org (phoenix.volant.org [205.179.79.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA05188 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:43:45 -0700 (PDT) From: patl@Phoenix.volant.org Received: from asimov.volant.org [205.179.79.65] by phoenix.volant.org with smtp (Exim 1.59 #1) id 0wLDNh-0003G9-00; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:43:37 -0700 Received: from localhost by asimov.volant.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06630; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:42:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: patl@Phoenix.volant.org Subject: Re: /etc/netstart bogons.. To: David Nugent cc: Jaye Mathisen , "Jordan K. Hubbard" , hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199704240129.LAA22210@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Perhaps this comes down to personal preference, but I've had > considerably more years experience in SysV than BSD, and I by > *far* prefer the BSD approach. Yes, it does come down to personal preference. I have many more years with various flavors of BSD; but the rc.d/init.d system is one of the few places where I think Solaris2 is a clear win over BSD. > Runlevel issues aside, I've found the SysV approach no simpler > than BSD - in fact, the exact opposite. Since you've given > Solaris ("Symlink City") as an example, I can't guess why you'd > find it easier. Yuck! Would hard links make you happier? Solaris2 certainly goes overboard on symlinks; but in this case I think they are the right way to go. > Spreading out startup/shutdown scripts into the filesystem is > bogus, imho. The *general* approach is ok, but rc.d/init.d with > runlevel dirs with symlinks just makes the whole mess > unmanageable. A simple flat file with a list of sub-scripts to > run and in which order would be so much simpler - text editors > are usually somewhat more usable than a cli and the eye can more > easily detect errors. I find it much -more- manageable. And I -really- like knowing that packages can install a startup script without attempting to edit any of my startup files. The rc.d/init.d directory provides a place for all of the startup scripts to live, under very descriptive names. Possibly including standard scripts for services that are not enabled on the system. The rc?.d directories provide a simple mechanism to specify which ones will be run and in what order. (The order is provided by the two-digit prefix on the link. Links with the same prefix may be run in any order.) >From the administration point of view, you are mostly interested in the rc.d/init.d version. That is the one that you invoke to manually start/stop/restart a service. That is the one that you view or edit if you want to see or change exactly what happens on service start/stop/restart. You only look in the rc?.d directories to ensure that the service is listed; and properly sequenced. And you can do that with a simple ls. (Use -l if you need to ensure that it is actually linked to the right script.) It's simple, elegant, and clean. (I'm slightly amazed that it made it into Solaris2 without a load of additional cruft.) And like it or not, FreeBSD does have at least two run levels. (Three if you count 'halted') The ability to automatically and cleanly start/stop services when switching between single and multi-user modes would be a big win. (For that matter, the ability to go from multi back to single without a reboot would be a win.) -Pat