On Wed, 3 May 2000, der Mouse wrote:

# Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 02:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
# From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
# To: tech-userlevel@netbsd.org
# Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
# 
# > I would also like to note that there is a possibility that I am going
# > to be the only one to post to this thread in this manner , since
# > people of my bent were told by Luke that any form of "re-hashing"
# > would be summarily deleted.  I realize why he did this, but because
# > he did so, the only people who have so far posted are pro-rc.d*,
# 
# There's a much simpler reason why only pro-rc.d stuff has shown up: the
# people who don't like rc.d have been told, about as clearly as
# possible, that NetBSD is not interested in supporting us.  Why should
# we throw good effort after bad?
# 
# > Luke actually said something like 'Please post constructive
# > critisism, and not flame"
# 
# Which is not an unreasonable request.  The problem with it in this
# regard is that the pro-rc.d people are unwilling or unable to
# acknowledge that the anti-rc.d people are worth supporting (or at least
# that's what _I_ got out of the discussion last time around).  Thus,
# about the only constructive criticism we can offer - "we need it to
# support this thing that it presently doesn't" - is viewed as nothing
# more than pointless repetitive griping opposing Progress.  And after a
# while, there really _isn't_ anything we can say that hasn't already
# been beaten to death several times over.
# 
# In short, we were told to go away, so we've gone away.  Where's the
# surprise?

No.  Speaking for myself, I'm NOT going away about this one.
rc.d was one thing.  rc.conf.d to the exclusion of rc.conf is very,
very different.

At the risk of repeating myself, I can handle having the scripts split.
I can NOT handle having the rc.conf information forcibly split.  It's
a solution looking for a problem.

I encourage anyone with an opinion to speak up and show that we are
not just a miniscule splinter faction.  We are not a minority,
necessarily, on this issue, and I am going to do the best I can to
see that we do not get railroaded.

 
# > I am concerned about this because when a small group of people who
# > are all enthusiastic about a particular concept get together, they
# > tend to brainstorm with each other, and not offer viewpoints that
# > people who are skeptical might.
# 
# If you really want to go into this again, please, before you throw more
# kerosene on the fire, go read the tech-userlevel archives back about
# the time rc was split up.  It's not more than a few months ago, and it
# will probably enlighten you about why you haven't seen contributions
# from anti-rc.d people.

Speak up, folks.  We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I agree that this latest go-round is nothing short of "if you
don't agree, we don't care about the technical reasons for it
because we've circumvented them all, so go away."

Well, I don't know 'bout y'all, but I am *not* going away.

I just wish my fscking DSL would get its collective sh!t
together so I could actually offer what I intend.

				--*greywolf;
--
BSD: Perpetual performance!