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 <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; 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.