Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 21:40:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: Coranth Gryphon <gryphon@healer.com> Cc: patl@asimov.volant.org, terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jmb@kryten.atinc.com, peter@taronga.com Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950925212311.608A-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <199509260401.AAA14675@healer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Sep 1995, Coranth Gryphon wrote:
> From: patl@asimov.volant.org
>
> > Actually, I find the SysV/Solaris2 technique -easier- to understand and
> > work with.
>
> As I said, it's a matter of personal preference.
This is the first time I've responded to this LONG thread, and it'll
probably be the last, so I'll say what I have to say, and keep quiet for
the rest of the bickering.
When I first saw the SVR4 model on a Solaris box, it was SO confusing; I
thought it was needlessly complex and difficult to comprehend. But when I
first saw the BSD startup scripts I thought they were very disorganized
and difficult to customize (and as many people have pointed out, almost
impossible for a script to properly customize without goofing something
up). BTW, my first Unix administration experience was a Slackware Linux
box (System V inittab but BSD-ish startup scripts).
As I learned more about both paradigms, I came to appreciate the SVR4
model more and more. And the fact that you don't have to write more than
a few lines of shell script to run the S## and K## scripts in the proper
order makes it painless to implement. As has been mentioned, the most
significant advantage is that the existing pkg_add facilities can add
startup scripts just like any other file; without ANY special handling
code, and without even the possibility of destroying an important "control
file" that the entire system depends on.
In fact, this weekend I'll try to whip up a full /etc/rc?.d - style boot
sequence and upload it to incoming. Then instead of bickering both camps
can try it out, and the "control file" camp can try to come up with
something better. Enough with the petty SysV/BSD religious wars and
hypothetical scenarios, we need to get some actual example scripts out
there to work with.
> When the argument comes up, "Which should I use? FreeBSD or Linux?",
> the answer I invariable see from the core team is "Try them both
> and decide for yourself". So I say let's implement both, do a great
> job on both, and see which people like.
>
> If they like both, we keep both. If they don't we drop the one that
> noone likes.
>
> -coranth
>
I appreciate your enthusiasm for pushing your idea, and I agree that we
should try out both implementations, but NOT in an official FreeBSD
release. Supporting two different kinds of startup scripts is a
nightmarish proposal. In fact, I don't think we should even push for
these scripts in -current until the majority has agreed on a single
paradigm, whatever it is. And, whatever we choose, it should be a good
enough implementation that the minority will not be totally turned off
from FreeBSD! :-) So lets get hacking, and may the best paradigm win!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Hamby | E-Mail: jehamby@lightside.com
Student, Cal Poly University, Pomona | System Administrator, JPL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.950925212311.608A-100000>