Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 10:10:35 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: "N.J. Mann" <njm@njm.me.uk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: updating cron and atrun Message-ID: <8967.1581243035@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <97A66670F59C9C626B5090E3@triton.njm.me.uk> References: <CAJzSF_7N4A-_6LfjivWRirNkTHv3ANWu%2BBX6g1UOKqdYmDZZNA@mail.gmail.com> <6701.1581190231@critter.freebsd.dk> <97A66670F59C9C626B5090E3@triton.njm.me.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- In message <97A66670F59C9C626B5090E3@triton.njm.me.uk>, "N.J. Mann" writes: >Hi, > >On Saturday, February 08, 2020 19:30:31 +0000 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> Thanks for looking into this. >> >> Is at(1) something people actually use these days, or should it be >> disabled by default ? > >I do. I use it to run various homebrew scripts in response to external >events. I needed a delay (sometime minutes, sometimes hours) between >the event and the response and at(1) was a perfect fit. Right, it is absolutely useful to have, if you need it, and it should not be removed. But if, as I suspect, the vast majority of FreeBSD pointlessly add 288 lines to /var/log/cron every day, without anybody ever using the at(1) command, maybe we should disable it to save power and disk-wear ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8967.1581243035>