Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 01:56:31 -0500 (EST) From: ADRIAN Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com> To: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> Cc: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, rssh@grad.kiev.ua, grog@lemis.com, 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: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981201013554.4238J-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com> In-Reply-To: <199811301510.KAA02669@y.dyson.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John S. Dyson wrote:
> Eivind Eklund said:
> >
> > The SysV approach ("symlink hell" and "let's play
> > mix-the-os-and-the-apps") is not really a good solution to this.
> > Those people that have managed SysV style boxes (and I never have)
> > tell me you regularly have to re-number a bunch of scripts because
> > you're out of slots to get the order you want. Besides, the SysV
> > approach is a de-nomralization - it loose the information on what has
> > to run before what, and just store the final order. Computing the
> > final order from a normalized representation is cheap, and it allow
> > replacements to indicate exactly how they are to run. Overall, it
> > seems (to me) to be a better infrastructure.
> >
> The problem with the current structure is the single file (or
> small group of single files) that are not easily seperable. The default
> BSD configuration is pretty much a monolithic morass. I don't like
> a terrible morass of multiple files either. However, the current
> argument is similar to structured programming vs. excessive goto
> programming (or programming in traditional, non structured basic.)
> As released, the monolithic scheme is okay, but systems don't stay
> the way that they are when released from an OS vendor.
Ok, I told myself to roll over and play dead on this topic, but I
guess I cannot help myself.
I guess we just see things differently. I view the rc?.d
directories and their name based ordering as a worse morass than the
monolithic BSD rc's. I rarely find them useful, and I rather like being
able to page through the rc and quickly know what's going on. This is no
longer possible once it is broken into 30 or 40 files.
I don't actually believe the BSD rc's are all that monolithic
anyway, oligolithic at best. With rc, rc.serial, rc.pccard, rc.network,
rc.firewall, rc.atm, rc.<arch>, rc.local and rc.shutdown things are
reasonably broken up, IMHO.
Adrian
--
[ adrian@ubergeeks.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ]
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?Pine.BSF.3.96.981201013554.4238J-100000>