Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:22:46 -0500 From: Donn Miller <dmmiller@cvzoom.net> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Init Re: MAKEDEV (Re: Speaking of moving files (Re: make world broken building fortunes ) ) ) Message-ID: <38588536.8A0818CB@cvzoom.net> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991215150029.64299A-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Scheidt wrote: > What's wrong with run with system V runlevels? Other than it's system V and > everything AT^HUSL did is evil, of course. Well, the one danger is that we'd be slowly drifting away from the classic BSD way of doing thigs. Of course, the official BSD is dead (right?). But OTOH, we want to carry FreeBSD forward, so if that means we have to incorporate some SysVisms, then so be it. After all, SysV borrowed some things from BSD. The second question I have is, do we try to stay on par with what Open/NetBSD are doing? Should we stick together, synchronise our efforts, and try to define what comprises "BSD"? Or, do we let the 3 BSDs diverge completely? Well, if the 3 diverge too far (ex: FreeBSD implements SysV runlevels, OpenBSD does not or goes with an entirely different system), them would it be fair to consider FreeBSD "BSD"? The advantage here is that FreeBSD would mature into it's own type of UNIX with a BSD heritage. - Donn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38588536.8A0818CB>