You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
My brother just sent me this rather vitriolic email
theres no reason to use just rc.d
nowadays - for gods sake, thats how Solaris is configured. urrrrrg.
your distro stinks of smelly poo and so do you.you can make a stab at how progress is going by what other innovations
people are using. If you want to live in the past you get left behind,
but there you go.
Aside from his rather unfortunate choice of words, I'd like to actually know what the advantages are of using bsd-style initscripts. Any thoughts?
Offline
They're simpler, cleaner, IMHO better. Try a sysv init system and you'll know.
Offline
What distro does your brother use ?
Mr Green
Offline
Load up Arch you will never go back
Mr Green
Offline
The scripts in Arch don't really matter to the user/administrator. You make changes in one easy place, the rc.conf file, and should never have to touch the scripts.
Offline
They're simpler, cleaner, IMHO better. Try a sysv init system and you'll know.
exactly
actually, i don't see rc.d a disadvantage in arch, but also not an advantage - simply i don't really care
... but if i would have the chance to choose, i would take init.d ;-)
The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.
Offline
dont get me wrong, I liked arch when my brother showed it to me, but I was discouraged that it didnt work on my 586
It's not as simple as a i686 install but it's doable. I just installed Arch on two 586's this week. I updated the original i586 root floppy to use kernel24 and to include it's own copy of packages.txt and pacman.pkg.tar.gz. Of course as soon as Xentac updates the repo packages.txt will be incorrect and need to be redone
Offline
Pages: 1