[Tfug] Well, now i've seen it all.

Tue May 31 00:41:08 MST 2011

Hi KeitH,

Do you remember that feeling you had when you discovered that Unix doesn't have a "rename" command for files?

There are two types of Unix geeks. Well call them Type A and Type B. 

Type A admins are usually under the age of 25. They're the ones that say, "OMG NO RENAME CMND???, TATS CRAZY!!, YAY OPN SOURS LRTS MAKE ONE in JAVA!!,", compose a scathing tweet against Unix and merrily set about reinventing the wheel. 

Type B admins are the ones that say, "Hm...Interesting...That can't possibly be an oversight. The task of renaming a file is probably encompassed by a different command somewhere.", and let experience lead them to the correct answer. mv. And more importantly, how to *use* mv.

The correct way to control what does or doesn't get launched during init's startup is to simply apply the methods you already know and use to control the behavior of any other program's startup in Unix -- by ommenting/uncommenting, or moving files out of the way. 

Don't want S26foobardaemon to kick off when going into run level 3? Rename it to _S26foobardaemon. That way, it won't be picked up, it leaves everything else in that runlevel undisturbed, and you have a visual marker that tells you which daemons in a given run level are enabled or disabled. You don't need chkconfig, systemd, and upstart. You need mv, a text editor, and a gentle reminder that this is Unix--if you can't figure out how to do it simply, you're probably doing it wrong.

Cheers,
Bowie

On May 30, 2011, at 7:26 PM, keith smith <klsmith2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> I'd like to hear why one is better than another, in more sys level detail so I can understand why you object.
> 
> ------------------------
> Keith Smith
> 
> --- On Mon, 5/30/11, bpoag at comcast.net <bpoag at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> From: bpoag at comcast.net <bpoag at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Tfug] Well, now i've seen it all.
> To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
> Date: Monday, May 30, 2011, 4:11 PM
> 
> 
> No. It's just that i'd prefer that the Unix variant i'm using not have a layout designed by children who haven't yet grasped the concept of "It's there for a reason. Learn what it does, first, before you decide it can be improved upon."
> 
> Refer to the analogy I used. :) It's the best one I can come up with to describe the problem..Someone comes along and tells you that your car's tires can be improved upon using a new and impressive tire design. One that offers improved friction and better braking distance by virtue of having more rubber in contact with the ground. It's only after you realize they're referring to triangular tires that you realize how unbelievably fucking stupid it is, and go back to round tires. I'm all for re-examining the ways we do things in Unix, but by the same token, I don't need a well-meaning, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed youngster with 3 years of Unix experience under his belt selling me (or you) on an idea they think works better than what's already been in place for 40 years. :)
> 
> I actually took some time and read up on systemd/upstart. IMHO, In the end, they're both fantastic solutions to a problem which don't exist, and were both born from a lack of understanding of basic Unix concepts. Linux seems regularly haunted with this sort of phenomenon. Someone in a position to determine the shape of a distro doesn't really get a certain concept, so, rather than learn it, he goes about reinventing the wheel. The reinvention process is deemed important by throngs of people who simply assume that since it's new, it's better. They then invest in the time required to learn how a new wheel should be invented, and the proverbial ball starts rolling. 
> 
> The same thing is likely going to occur here. The loveable funsters hard at work on the triangular tire will eventually discover that square tires work a little better, then pentagonal tires, then heptagonal, then, octagonal, dodecagonal....working their way right back to the way shit used to be. I'm just tired of watching that crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Rini" <trini at kernel.crashing.org>
> To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 3:25:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Tfug] Well, now i've seen it all.
> 
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:50 PM,  <bpoag at comcast.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> > ...and people wonder why I switched to OS X.
> 
> You couldn't want for Linux to get around to coming up with a few
> implementations of the idea and not quite settling on one yet?
> 
> Seriously tho, yes, F15 is seriously pushing one of the alternatives
> to sysvinit so in a few more cycles there should really be something
> useful here for most.
> 
> -- 
> Tom
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20110531/9b46278b/attachment-0002.html>