Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:59:09 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" <mrm@MARMOT.Mole.ORG> To: alk@Think.COM, terry@lambert.org Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, phk@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/mtree BSD.usr.dist Message-ID: <199606231559.IAA06629@meerkat.mole.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'd go further; /bin/sh is evil, as are any other scripting systems
> where it's possible to have the data embedded in the script instead
> of operated on by a tool. The only reason I don't call for its
> removal is that the installation and the system startup (incorrectly)
> depend on it, and /bin/csh is more evil. As the default system shell,
> it has to be there, but that makes it no less annoying. Look at
> the /etc/rc* mess that /bin/sh has gotten us into because it was
> more convenient than Doing Things The Right Way. 8-(.
Not using scripting languages makes the system behave exactly as the
developers intended and makes it more difficult for consumers to modify
the system to meet their own needs. If that's the goal, go for it.
System startup does not incorrectly depend upon a scripted shell. It
is _designed_ to used a scripted shell. It's not just an accident
or matter of expediency. That it is /bin/sh is immaterial. I'll agree
that /bin/csh is inappropriate, but a working /bin/sh or Plan 9 rc
is just fine.
Implementation of policy for seldom invoked activity
in editable script is a Fine Thing Indeed.
Is /etc/rc kludged a wee tad? Sure. If I feel like replacing it with
a System V like init.d driven startup, that's my choice. So is installing
a System V like init and inittab.
"Doing Things The Right Way" is, of course, a matter of perspective.
--
Mike Murphy mrm@Mole.ORG +1 619 598 5874
Better is the enemy of Good
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606231559.IAA06629>