Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 19:39:59 -0700 From: patl@asimov.volant.org To: chuckr@eng.umd.edu Cc: kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, terry@lambert.org, julian@ref.tfs.com, asami@cs.berkeley.edu, ports@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <9509210239.AA21415@asimov.volant.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
|> > The run levels seem have fairly standard meanings - PLEASE stick with
|> > the level definitions as used by Solaris, HP-UX, etc. There is no
|> > excuse for gratuituous incompatability.
|>
|> This seems a little cockeyed, requesting no changes in a "standard" item,
|> that would be totally non-standard in BSD from the start anyways. Are
|> there BSD based systems, not running init/inittab SVR type things, that
|> use this setup? Because, if there aren't, asking for standardization is
|> simply tying the hands of designers, for no good purpose.
|>
|> If I'm right, and a BSD standard to this doesn't exist, then an
|> oppurtunity is presenting itself to use the best of what's out there.
|> This isn't linux or SYSV, so reasons based on such systems are out of
|> place. Am I wrong?
'BSD style unix' is a red herring here. The operative word is 'unix'.
If we're doing something similar to what SVr4 or any other flavor of
unix does, and there is no STRONG technical reason to be different,
any differences are simply gratuitous. Compatibility helps -all- unixes
in the fight against Win* and other brain-dead toy OSes. (That happen
to have the bulk of the market share...)
I reiterate:
1. Gratuitous differences are BAD.
2. Compatibility is GOOD.
Of course, I -could- be mistaken. I've only been a systems level
software engineer for twenty three years now...
-Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9509210239.AA21415>