Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:29:15 +1000 From: David Nugent <davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> To: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@cdsnet.net> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/netstart bogons.. Message-ID: <199704240129.LAA22210@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:38:32 MST." <Pine.NEB.3.95.970423153555.12245E-100000@mail.cdsnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, fter having worked on Solaris and Digital Unix, I find I have an
> affinity for the rc2.d/init.d stuff.
>
> It would address this problem nicely, and eliminate the constant hassle
> of merging /etc/rc, /etc/netstart, /etc/sysconfig nearly every *horkin*
> release.
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.
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!
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.
Regards,
David Nugent - Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia
Voice +61-3-9791-9547 Data/BBS +61-3-9792-3507 3:632/348@fidonet
davidn@freebsd.org davidn@blaze.net.au http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704240129.LAA22210>