Oh yes, I certainly agree that the design of the System V runlevel architecture is far superiour to the BSD approach. I used BSD and SVR4 side by side for years, and am happy to admit that each had its good and bad points.
For instance I always disliked the way SVR4 had all these over complicated port/service management command line utilities rather than just letting me edit a configuration file. But in general, my impression was that the Bell Labs/AT&T/Lucent stuff was always cleaner and more consistent, while BSD was more powerful and flexible (because Berkely added features that they wanted, even if they violated Unix system philosophy). Linux does a pretty good job of picking the best technology from the varous systems, but where it tends to fall down is in tidying up the loose ends and producing a coherent product. I suppose that is an inevitable result of the more egalitarian development process. Regards, DigbyT On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:16:17PM -0500, A. Khattri wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Digby Tarvin wrote: > > > Maybe it is just me, but I think it seems a bit of a confusing muddle.. > > I think that's to be expected - as you point out noone else uses a > symbolic naming scheme so some of the usual Linux tools are not "aware" of > it. (But that's always the case when transitioning from one way of doing > things to another). > > I could point to old BSD boxes and show how having umpteen rc.* files in > /etc is pretty damn confusing especially if you're trying to figure out > how to startup a service. As an example, its only recently that certain > BSDs started using a central /etc/rc.d folder for startup scripts - took > 'em long enough to realize that this was probably a good idea all along > and that its OK to borrow from the SysV world now and then :-) > -- Digby R. S. Tarvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.digbyt.com -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
