Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 20:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Cc: dyson@iquest.net, wes@softweyr.com, tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: System V init (was: Linux to be deployed in Mexican schools; Where was FreeBSD?) Message-ID: <199811300150.UAA00283@y.dyson.net> In-Reply-To: <19981130115038.J831@freebie.lemis.com> from Greg Lehey at "Nov 30, 98 11:50:38 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey said: > > > > The already available SYSV-like inits. No sense in reinventing the > > world. > > We already have an init which can do the job. No sense in reinventing > the world. > But FreeBSD init is not the standard, and the modified or enhanced usage of it is not the standard. If it is the "FreeBSD" standard, it doesn't make it THE standard. I am suggesting the FreeBSD standard be more in line with the rest of the world. Arguing technical merits simply degrade into "you can do it in perl or C." SYSV init is pretty much a superset of FreeBSD init, so there is really no significant additional overhead. SYSV init MIGHT even be a proper superset of FreeBSD init. > > > > SYSV. The world already has too many self-defined standards. NIH > > springs to mind. > > Hmm. OK, I'll let that one ride. What does POSIX.1 say? > Hmm... What does Linux and SYSV do? Of course there are some Linux distributions that don't use standard versions of init, but there are those who do also. I am suggesting the use of SYSV style init, which is what add-on software vendors tend to expect. (Comparing with the other *BSD's don't appeal to software vendors needs.) > > > If the existant SYSV inits need some polishing or a minor amount of > > re-enginnering, and perhaps a formal policy needs to be created, then > > so be it. Cobbling together yet another hack scheme seems to be wasted > > effort and obfuscation. > > I don't seem to be coming across. FreeBSD init already has everything > that we need to do this. > telinit 4. I guess you can simulate telinit 4, but that requires more on-site hacking. I am trying to suggest that a commonly used standard feature should be supported by FreeBSD. Alternative hacks need not apply, unless they are compatible. I guess I don't care if the init is a SYSV init, if it is nearly identical in functionality, and looks the same to the vendors and users. > > If SYSV init is missing some capabilities, then add them or clean > > that up. FreeBSD's init is very very simple, but simpler than it > > should be. > > Again, where's the missing functiionality? > If you hack around it, then it doesn't have much missing functionality. (reducing to the absurd:) Of course, where is the missing functionality by programming everything in binary, with toggle switches? I can even visualize an X windows display by (x,y) coordinates and the information content, but that is not the same experience. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811300150.UAA00283>