DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2005-02
Re: rc and smf
Chris Pressey wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:46:40 +0800
Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Erlang is largely concept, and near-as-dammit uniquely Ericsson.
To be fair, it's a pretty nice language.
Its a *lovely* tool - for what it is good at. My first impression was
that it could address a *lot* of challenges - and by no means limited to
BUT - perhaps as with the 'Plan 9' concept of aggregating all detectable
resources one chooses to invite to the party, Erlang's ability to move
work around between available resources comes from a model that imposes
a price that can't entirely be shed when/where not needed.
I've written a construction
cost-estimating program in it, and it's a breeze to maintain. Very few
of the concurrency features are fully exploited by my application, of
course, but even if they were taken out completely, I would find the
remainder to be one of the most comprehensible functional languages
Agree that - there have been times I wish it could / had already
replace(d) 'C' <g>
But - speed, universality....
That's not to say it doesn't have its warts, because it has plenty.
But that's neither here nor there...
We 'passengers' are wasting too much developer time on what seems to be
an inexhaustible well of irrelevant distractions...
Best I go off and look at a simplified (not complexified) startup
methodology so I don't have to modify or replace /etc/rc all the time.
Stock version has whiskers, and it's conditionals conditionals have
Plain text, and table-driven, just as fstab is, perhaps with similar
'pass' numbering, and simple major-key, minor-key grouping to handle pre
and post preferences per (userland) daemon. The sequence you set is the
sequence toor uses. Startup and shutdown NOT just the reverse of each
The added layer of rc.subr has always smacked of Win-bloat to me.
And no 'jihad' if no one else likes it.. <g>