From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 30 22:57:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA22272 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:57:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lorax.ubergeeks.com (lorax.ubergeeks.com [206.205.41.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA22265 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:57:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from adrian@lorax.ubergeeks.com) Received: from localhost (adrian@localhost) by lorax.ubergeeks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA05760; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:56:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from adrian@lorax.ubergeeks.com) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:56:31 -0500 (EST) From: ADRIAN Filipi-Martin Reply-To: Adrian Filipi-Martin To: "John S. Dyson" cc: Eivind Eklund , rssh@grad.kiev.ua, grog@lemis.com, 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?) In-Reply-To: <199811301510.KAA02669@y.dyson.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John S. Dyson wrote: > 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. Ok, I told myself to roll over and play dead on this topic, but I guess I cannot help myself. I guess we just see things differently. I view the rc?.d directories and their name based ordering as a worse morass than the monolithic BSD rc's. I rarely find them useful, and I rather like being able to page through the rc and quickly know what's going on. This is no longer possible once it is broken into 30 or 40 files. I don't actually believe the BSD rc's are all that monolithic anyway, oligolithic at best. With rc, rc.serial, rc.pccard, rc.network, rc.firewall, rc.atm, rc., rc.local and rc.shutdown things are reasonably broken up, IMHO. Adrian -- [ adrian@ubergeeks.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message