On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:44:23 -0600 Conrad Nelson <y...@marupa.net> wrote:
> Not everyone is a programmer, but a lot of non-programmers are still > admins but are not interested in working with shell scripts if they > don't have to. We already have: skeleton, /etc/default. I agree it's poor, but as I said, and at least for me, the right way is to extend existing software: (1) add new features to sysvinit (2) add new software in addition to sysvinit (3) make init scripts more correct (abstraction) (4) extend configurability (more options in /etc/default/*) (3) makes (4) easily possible And if sysvinit is in accord with UNIX philosophy, and as they say it is, than I don't see why (1) and (2) would not be possible, too, and with not to much effort. About what they say as disadvantages of sysvinit (lack of features), is not really to blame sysvinit, because it does one thing and do it right[1]. Other features could be implemented as additional software. On the other hand, what actually was done was writing new software that make old software obsolete and that do *many* things, which is not in accord with UNIX philosophy (and is in accord with authoritarian philosophy). > Further, shell scripts can have any number of bugs in > them that are harder to find than unit files which rarely have more than > a dozen lines in them. Every complex software has bugs, including complex init system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Mike_Gancarz:_The_UNIX_Philosophy rule 2 -- http://mr.flossdaily.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131108134841.71563...@eunet.rs
