Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:34:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@eng.umd.edu> To: patl@asimov.volant.org 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: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950920231752.22999B-100000@latte.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <9509210239.AA21415@asimov.volant.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Sep 1995 patl@asimov.volant.org wrote: > |> > 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... OK, let me see if I have this right: 1) We need an improved startup script system. 2) There's a very good framework for one existing, it has a lot of bugs that many people find completely objectionable, but it's a good starting point. 3) Removing the perceived bugs in that other system makes it different from the original, displeasing those that happened to have a lot of experience using it, and don't want to learn another. 4) We, instead, must use another custom setup. It, too, will be non-standard, but at least it won't be traceable to the One True System. Is this a fair summary? I'm not in a fight with anyone, even Microsoft. I wish our fellow enthusiasts running Linux well, but I don't want to copy them. I really enjoy FreeBSD, and I enjoy showing it to friends, like I enjoy sharing favorite books. FreeBSD is quite different than other SYSV systems, and everyone associated with it wishes that it remain so. If I'm discussing making gratuitous changes to a part of the BSD Unix standard, I apologize, I'm completely wrong (and embarrassed), but I don't think so. I think I've beat this to death, I'm probably boring folks, so I'm gonna drop it. I see why it wasn't done before, tho. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.950920231752.22999B-100000>