Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 08:58:38 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Daniel Blankensteiner <db@traceroute.dk>, oppermann@pipeline.ch, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD daemon configurations redesign Message-ID: <3CF8EF2E.241A2A4D@softweyr.com> References: <F67gL6wxvw0IDT8zAJ90000d078@hotmail.com> <00c601c2082d$bc531ff0$6800a8c0@rafter> <3CF6B300.145E0CD9@mindspring.com> <011201c20832$34404750$6800a8c0@rafter> <3CF6B895.FC525A19@pipeline.ch> <001f01c20835$3904f3f0$6800a8c0@rafter> <3CF6CD2B.CCB56553@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Daniel Blankensteiner wrote:
> > From: "Andre Oppermann" <oppermann@pipeline.ch>
> > > Daniel, Terry, whoever,
> > >
> > > Please move this discussion from -arch to -chat. F'upt set.
> >
> > Is this not the right group to dissuss the FreeBSD design?
> > freebsd-chat is certainly not.
> > Then tell me, if I want to create a debate about changing /etc where do
> > I write to?
>
> He was being less polite than I was.
Perhaps in setting follups to chat he was. In asking you to move a
system architecture discussion to -arch, he was just trying to keep the
noise level on -developers down.
> He's saying he likes things just fine the way they are, and so
> there's no need to discuss them.
>
> I'm saying that this has been discussed to death, the conclusion
> is a given, and that Eric Melville and others are already on it,
> so you should either get with them, or look at the archives to
> see how your discussion will end.
People used to say that about the rc system also, and one of these
days we're going to actually have the lukem rc system imported and
working, with improvements no less. The conclusion of the rc
"discussions" always drew was that the SysV init system was too
weak to bother moving to. Luke finally came up with something that
is demonstrably better, and implemented it in NetBSD. The work to
import it to FreeBSD has been slow, but it is happening, and it is
enough of an improvement to bother with.
So, the bar for your design has been set. Is breaking up the system
configuration into all those little bitty files really an improvement?
Discuss how this will improve the system, rather than just calling the
existing implementation "not designed" and flinging around a few
directory trees. Tell us why and how this will improve the system, how
it will interact with SNMP or something like that, etc. Give us a
reason to believe, other than "it's better because Daniel designed it."
Some of the people who developed the existing system weren't complete
buffoons, you know.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CF8EF2E.241A2A4D>