(none) yaxic
/ help / lists / applications / search /

Re: A couple of comments

From: Kristofer Sigurdsson (
Date: Mon 01 Apr 2002 - 19:24:40 UTC

  • Next message: Guğmundur D. Haraldsson: "Re: A couple of comments"

    On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 19:12, Guğmundur D. Haraldsson wrote:
    > -*- Kristofer Sigurdsson <01172@xyz.molar.is> [ 2002-04-01 18:25 ]:
    > > >
    > > > > I think we should write the init system as such in C, but keep an option
    > > > > open for writing the init scripts themselves in Perl.
    > > > Wait a minute ... the system itself in perl? As I understood it, the scripts
    > > > were supposed to be perl, but not the system itself. Perhaps that isn't
    > > > specified clearly, though...
    > >
    > > The same argument still goes, init scripts are mostly carried out before
    > > anything else, so we can't expect access to shared libraries, etc.
    > >
    > The init*scripts* (not init it self) can be written in perl, shared libraries are not in the way
    > if you compile the thing staticlyi, of course that binary whould not be the typical "/usr/bin/perl",
    > rather "/bin/initperl" or something ...

    Sure, but do we want a system that /requires/ a statically compiled Perl
    parser to boot? ;)

    Anyway, I don't think this is a real issue. Most systems, Linux, *BSD,
    etc. have this capability. You can write init scripts in any language,
    including C. They just don't do it. ;-)

    This debate has a place in the future, when Yaxic can be considered as
    "usable", and distro wars start. ;-)

    > Btw., about that IPv4 vs IPv6 war, why are the developers of (for an example):
    > BIND, Sendmail, Apache, xinetd, Mozilla, Konqueror (or maybe KDE in general), OpenSSH, Postfix, OpenBSD,
    > NetBSD, Linux, Windows, etc implementing IPv6 if it ain't the future?

    There's nothing wrong with implementing this thing. Bare in mind, these
    systems also support token ring and IPX. Replacing IPv4 with it is an
    entirely different matter.

    > Also note that Cisco is implementing IPv6 support in their software, Stealth is providing *native*
    > IPv6 routing (they also offer tunnels..), some ISPs offer IPv6 routing (even with PPP connections).

    Same argument here. There's nothing wrong with being able to use IPv6.
    It sells. But it's not going to replace IPv4.

    > You are the first man I heard stating that IPv6 is not the furture.

    Then you obviously aren't following public discussion about the matter.
    Should you choose to persue the subject, I would recommend RIPE/ARIN
    ops, and/or the discussion about internet standard (STD) drafts.

    > -G.
    > --
    > ===================================================================================
    > | Guğmundur D. Haraldsson | When you have eliminated the impossible,|
    > | 01206@xyz.molar.is | what ever remains, however improbable, |
    > | http://www.binhex.EU.org/ | must be the truth. |
    > | | - Sherlock Holmes, "The sign of four" |
    > |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    > | GPG key: lynx -dump http://vlug.eyjar.is/gdh/gpgkey.asc | gpg --import |
    > | Key fingerprint = DE6D A875 EA92 0699 9B49 8C49 2DBB 76BF ADD4 C933 |
    > ===================================================================================
    > // Spammers will be affixiated in paté!