rc.local doesn't get run?
theoldfellow at gmail.com
Tue Feb 6 01:36:08 PST 2007
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 2/6/07, Bauke Jan Douma <bjdouma at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Btw., here's another reference to rc.local:
>> Redhat..., hm. So again, praytell, what /is/ Linux.
> Well, the only "standard" I can think of is the LSB, and I don't see
> anything about rc.local in the system initialization chapter.
> And if it is a really widely accepted standard, then why would a huge
> distro like SuSE decide to break it and call their file boot.local for
> no reason whatsoever? I'm not saying we shouldn't do this, but I don't
> think our system is broken if we don't.
IMNSHO, the LSB is heap of entrenched commercial opinion, and not worth
didly squat. Happily it doesn't mention rc.local, so even the sheep
can't follow it. Some peeps are into standards, but I'm not. They
stifle growth, learning, and innovation.
Like I said, LFS is what you make it to be. You want standards? Build
standards. You want innovation? Go look for it or, better, do it
yourself. But there again I don't think people who can't write IO in
Algol-60 should be allowed to own computers... :-)
(got out of bed looking for a fight today! I've decided to take over
where DJB left off...)
More information about the lfs-support