They SysV way is more elegant and less error prone for bad typist. Graphical tools can be used to interface with these quite easily. It also also easy to automate installations via installation mechanisms. I don't think I agree that it is a bad idea because it is associated with SysV...
On 15 Jun 1999, Arun Sharma wrote: > Date: 15 Jun 1999 19:54:51 -0700 > From: Arun Sharma <adsha...@home.com> > To: Mark Newton <new...@internode.com.au> > Cc: hack...@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature > > Mark Newton <new...@internode.com.au> writes: > > > Arun Sharma wrote: > > > > > While we're on the init topic, is there any strong feeling here about > > > BSD /etc/rc* scripts Vs SysV ? The nice thing about SysV initscripts > > > is the ability to start and stop any service that I like. > > > > That's fine -- there are lots of ways to start and stop any service you > > like without involving SysV init. > > Like sending a signal to the process providing the service ? The > problem with that approach is, the signal you send and the clean up > you do is non-standard for each service and having a standard > interface: > > /etc/rc.d/<service> stop|start|restart > > makes it standard. > > -Arun > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
