Re: Bad Debian (L.A.H.)
On Sun, 09 Mar 2003, J. Lambrecht wrote:
> // I am not on the list so please, reply to all
This is shockingly close to a troll.
> "From : Linux Administrator Handbook p.35 (Prentice Hall,2002) "
I haven't read this, but my expereince with Prenhall technical books has
not left me with a good impression of them. (I used to know a sales
person who worked there - she said they were considered a joke in the
industry. This was several years ago; I don't know if this is still true
or not.)
> Debian startup scripts
>
> If SuSE is the ultimate example of a well-designed, well-executed plan
> for the management of startup scripts, Debian is the exact opposite. The
> Debian scripts are fragile, undocumented, and unbelievably incosistent.
> Sadly, it appears that the lack of a standard way of setting up scripts
> has resulted in chaos in this case. Bad Debian!
Ugh. Suse's startup spagetti is not exactly what I'd call a role model.
I'll admit I'm fairly anti-Suse, and this the state of init.d is one of
the reasons. tracing a startup failure through the morass of runtime
environment and config files sucks, IMO.
There certainly are some inconsistencies in Debian's setup, in that they
don't all work the same way. I see no real reason why they should. (I
can think of some nice directions they could go in for enhancement, but
that's a different topic.) But fragile? hardly.
I work with a company that is mostly Suse. They spend a lot of time at
the console. I finally made them install a debian box for my company,
have never even seen it, and manage it remotely. Go figure.
> Does anyone now if the SuSE startup scripts would work on Debian, or are
> there more well-planned startupscripts available for Debian.
I'm not aware of any. Feel free to hack them in. I can't imagine it
would be very fun.
What is it exactly are you complaining about?
-j
--
Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org
You don't become a failure until you're satisfied with being one.
Reply to: