Re: StartupItems
Re: StartupItems
- Subject: Re: StartupItems
- From: Lawrence Sica <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 05:39:34 -0400
On May 23, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Chris Ridd wrote:
On 23/5/06 7:03, Dan Shoop <email@hidden> wrote:
And if you think that the rc.d mechanism used so commonly today is an
improvement or so great try answering the following common question:
"what letter/number/name should I make my rc file to start up X?
Which rc directory should it go under?" Such mechanisms are a huge
step backwards and unbelievably fragile.
It is interesting that Sun also came to the same conclusion, and
replaced it
with their Service Management Framework (SMF) in Solaris 10.
Has anyone compared launchd with SMF? Is there anything SMF does
better than
launchd?
I've not gotten too deeply into SMF yet. We are starting to roll out
Solaris 10 at work though. It strikes me as a very similar idea
though, and I do prefer it to rcX.d. It was always frustrating how
you cannot truly guarantee startup order of items starting at the
same SX level.
Bascially you register with SMF what you want started and when and it
goes. There is an admin interface for most things though you can
also edit some files if you wish.
It's light years better than the old way.
--Larry
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden