der Mouse wrote:
> > 2. The trend seems to be taking NetBSD closer and closer to a System
> > 5ish sort of run level thingie.

That's just not true.

There is a big difference between our and SysV startup staff, even
when the base idea is same (i.e. ability to easily start/stop individual
daemons). Luke's system tries to address maintanence and usage problems
with "standard" SysV-ish startup staff.

We all try to make NetBSD better OS to use, that's all.

> > [I]n the email flying back and forth, I see no disscussion of the
> > advantages, and much disscussion of the disadvantages.

Probably because nobody has many experiences with the new system
yet and they want to let Luke talk about it first, prolly.

> And the proponents of the new way seem to see this widespread
> discontent as meaningless anti-progress grumbling, rather than evidence
> that perhaps this change was a mistake.

It's easy to see this way (as meaningless anti-progress grumbling)
when the opponents of new system aren't constructive and
just keep saying the mantra "it's not BSD, it's not BSD".

BSD is about well-though out and designed subsystems - and that's
what Luke's staff is. There are still some practical problems with
it current state of things, but they will be addressed and handled
during time. Currently needed is time and willingness to try the
staff out and find out how good or bad it is, i.e. the practical
experiences. If the new staff will cause serious problems and system
would be harder to administer and maintain with it, ok, we will
drop it. But shooting whole system just because it has borrowed
some ideas from SysV is ridiculous.

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>      http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
@@@@  Wanna a real operating system ? Go and get NetBSD, damn!  @@@@