From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 25 22:21:01 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA12070 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 22:21:01 -0700 Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA12063 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 22:20:56 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA20013 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG); Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:18:51 -0500 Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id AAA29177 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:08:25 -0500 From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Message-Id: <199509260508.AAA29177@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: Re: ports startup scripts To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:08:24 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199509260343.XAA14628@healer.com> from "Coranth Gryphon" at Sep 25, 95 11:43:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 693 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > It's not that SysV confuses me, it's that I think it is a LOUSY DESIGN. > Personal opinion, which is a matter of a lot of experience. I've been > doing unix system and programming admin for about 10 years. And I like > the BSD way over the SysV way. Argument from authority? I've been doing it for 15 years, including working on the 4.1C and 4.2 BSD distributions, and I *hate* anything that depends on editing config files safely. The only system I've seen that has worked with autoedited files... and this will really make you cringe... is Microsoft Windows. Their config files actually have the hooks to do it right. Of course they don't have concurrency problems, at least until NT.