site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com On May 23, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Chris Ridd wrote: On 23/5/06 7:03, Dan Shoop <shoop@iwiring.net> 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'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 (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... 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. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com