> der Mouse wrote:
(Actually, I quoted someone else, who wrote this.)
>>> 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 [stuff],

Yes, there still are significant differences between this latest
version and real SysV (thank the gods!).  But this step certainly is
moving in that direction.

> Luke's system tries to address maintanence and usage problems with
> "standard" SysV-ish startup [stuff].

Some problems, perhaps.  It certainly doesn't try very hard to do
anything about the problems *I* have with the SysV way, or it
wouldn't've split up rc at all - we didn't suffer from them before and
now we do, which is hardly addressing them.

>> 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

What is there to say?  It's so exactly a step in the wrong direction
there isn't much that can be said.  The closest to "constructive" I can
get is to say is "go back to what we had", which I somehow doubt you
will think is constructive.

> and just keep saying the mantra "it's not BSD, it's not BSD".

And...?  It ain't!

If you think the comfort factor ("warm fuzzies", if you prefer) isn't
important, I suspect you haven't spent much time out in the trenches.
*You* may take an antagonistic attitude towards your computers, but *I*
want to feel I'm working with the system, not fighting it.  I've used
systems with split-up rc scripts, and I *do* feel I'm constantly having
to fight with them.  (Runlevels and inittab, while I dislike for other
reasons, I haven't had much feeling of fighting with.  But split-up rc
scripts I loathe.)

> BSD is about well-though out and designed subsystems - and that's
> what Luke's [stuff] is.

But for the wrong problems.  It's attempting to solve problems arising
from a desire to do mechanical boot script maintenance, apparently
without caring about the problems it introduces for human boot script
maintenance.

> Currently needed is time and willingness to try the [stuff] out and
> find out how good or bad it is, i.e. the practical experiences.  If
> the new [stuff] will cause serious problems and system would be
> harder to administer and maintain
(For whom?)
> with it, ok, we will drop it.

Will we?  That's not what FvdL said.  And given that it went in, and is
staying in, in the face of loud and repeated objections and ignoring
issues raised by not just gadflies like me but people like thorpej, I
find it hard to believe Luke will roll it back for anything less than a
direct command from core.

> But shooting whole system just because it has borrowed some ideas
> from SysV is ridiculous.

It's not *that* it borrowed from SysV.  It's *what* it borrowed.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B