Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Jeremy A. Kolb" <jkolb AT brandeis.edu>]

I don't think we are talking about actually implementing init in bash but 
an init configurator right?

Jeremy

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Tony Smith wrote:

> Sorry, but I'd rather chew off my own leg than use an init written in bash. 
> 
> (I come at things from the opposite end of the spectrum, and I think SMGL 
> needs less bash, not more.)
> 
> We should concentrate on fixing things that are broken, rather than 
> breaking 
> things that are fixed.
> 
> Tony
> 
> On Wednesday 26 March 2003 7:25 am, Peter Schneider-Kamp wrote:
> > M.L. wrote:
> > > Right but is it really necessary to reinvent the weel in bash ?
> > >
> > > I'm not part of the developer team, but I thinks being 100% bash based 
> > > is
> > > not the main SMGL's goal. Then, it's not even the easyest way to do
> > > certain things, as you said.
> >
> > Although I *do* love bash (and have contributed a few lines of bash
> > code), I am pretty sure I would not want an all bash SMGL.
> >
> > Talk about speed and, of course, reinventing the wheel. For example
> > replacing init with a bash version would only make sense to me
> > if it significantly improved on init. Why replace something that is
> > perfectly stable, well-understood and does its job like a machine?
> >
> >    The power of bash is *combining* standard tools in an
> >    easy and comfortable way - not *replacing* them!
> >
> > Greetings and thumbs up for the development team,
> > Peter
> >
> > P.S.: <DISCLAIMER>I'm not on the developer team, either.</DISCLAIMER>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>