Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Why simpleinit-msb ?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Andrew \"ruskie\" Levstik" <ruskie AT mages.ath.cx>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Why simpleinit-msb ?
  • Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:40:08 +0200

Dragan Stanojevic - Nevidljivi wrote :

> Hello folks,
>
> I'm new to this distro, but I'd like to help.
>
> I don't know the reason why have you abandoned sysVinit. First of all
> simpleinit-msb is not longer maintained. It's successor LFSinit has not
> been changed since 01/2005. And not to say the reasons in
> WHY_SYSVINIT_SETUPS_SUCK file in simpleinit-smb tarball are childish to
> say the least. simpleinit demonstrates why sysvinit was created!
>
> I think the sysvinit is a way to go. simpleinit is hard to understand at
> first, makes smgl boot process as complex as it gets, and all SA are
> already quite familiar with sysv init. You're making smgl a lot less
> desirable because of it :(
>
> Is there some explanation why have you abandoned it?
>
> bye,
> N::
>
>
> [ Part application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" (smime.p7s) :
> S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ]
>
> (not shown)
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>
>

lemme first get biased here... I have sysVinit atleast rh style...
I love bsd style init system scripts...
But for modularity and runtime depends simpleinit is the best atm.

it's not hard to get used to... it's easier then rh style sysVinit.
Not sure but I think simpleinit was created after sysvinit...
So go ask yourself why... if sysvinit is supposed to be so good.

--
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik

http://ruskie.dtdm.org/blog/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page