Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 08:05:12 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: Josh Aas <josh@kflag.net> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "N.J. Mann" <njm@njm.me.uk> Subject: Re: updating cron and atrun Message-ID: <202002091605.019G5Csj051412@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJzSF_5dEhnEx5wKGyJ6NrjyJtSiscH9EDrZH-y9EFnE1kN25w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJzSF_7N4A-_6LfjivWRirNkTHv3ANWu%2BBX6g1UOKqdYmDZZNA@mail.gmail.com> <6701.1581190231@critter.freebsd.dk> <97A66670F59C9C626B5090E3@triton.njm.me.uk> <8967.1581243035@critter.freebsd.dk> <55C50689-6DA8-4D44-92BB-72C38B54AC96@cschubert.com> <202002091350.019DoZrf084564@slippy.cwsent.com> <CAJzSF_5dEhnEx5wKGyJ6NrjyJtSiscH9EDrZH-y9EFnE1kN25w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <CAJzSF_5dEhnEx5wKGyJ6NrjyJtSiscH9EDrZH-y9EFnE1kN25w@mail.gmail.c om> , Josh Aas writes: > There seems to be a real question here about the value of at/atrun. > Maybe a good compromise is to move that functionality to ports instead > of the base system. If we integrate the functionality into cron then > we're basically stuck with it in core. All functionality adds > complexity, and complexity adds maintenance cost and risk. Sometimes > that's totally worth it, but I don't think it's clear that saddling > FreeBSD base with at/atrun because we integrated it with cron for > unclear reasons is necessarily a good idea. That is not a compromise. The functionality has been in cron in Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, DG/UX, Tru64, and now NetBSD for years, in some cases decades. Why such a reluctance to maintain basic functionality because it is either not understood or you never use it? Atrun should be integrated into cron, where all other major UNIX and UNIX-like systems have the function. However when we implement pkgbase crond(8), crontab(1), and at(1)/batch(1) should be three separate packages, like Linux distros do. crond(8) could be installed by default whereas crontab(1) and at(1)/batch(1) would not. Moving at(1) and batch(1) to ports would be tantamount to putting vi in ports because, well, nano is an easier to use editor. (Yes, we did that at $JOB on our RHEL servers for a while because vi is too hard for most people to use, it used up valuable space, and only installed it if a customer specifically requested it. That policy is no more but that it was makes my point. We now install vim and nano.) You get my point. The fact that some people don't understand a utility and don't have the time or patience to learn it (yes, we're all busy, like at $JOB, and taking time out to learn something, like at $JOB, has a cost) doesn't mean it's not useful. Coming from a SunOS, Solaris, HP-UX, DG/UX, Tru64 background, at(1) and batch(1) are a basic function of cron, even if some in the Linux community feel they're not. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202002091605.019G5Csj051412>