On 05/11/2017 17:11, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There are other schedulers out there that succeed where cron fails (eg >> Control-M, chronos, quartz), but those are all large, bulky, designed >> for big complex installs/requirements and probably not suited for simple >> things you'd deploy out of a base in portage >> > > Amusing that you classify 99.999% of all desktop installs as "big > complex installs."
Heh :-) Well, to a first approximation all Linux installs are servers or phones so whatever is going on in desktop space can be disregarded > > But, I agree that it makes far more sense to just have desktop users > use an appropriate cron implementation designed to handle the machine > being off most of the time vs trying to use shell scripting to make > vixie cron into such an implementation. Vixie cron and it's clones needs to die, really. The number of places where it makes sense is falling by the day; showing no sign of slowing down. I think I have 3 cronjobs left across my fleet that actually make sense and all of them are just-in-case-I-screwed-up-elsewhere safety nets. The very idea of cron itself comes from the '80s and to be honest, we don't work anymore like we did in the 80s > > FWIW this is probably the reasoning behind including cron-like > functionality in systemd, and having it support optionally running > jobs if the system was down during a calendar-based event. It was > considered bare-bones functionality that any desktop or generic server > would need. It is, of course, optional, and just about any kind of > rule is supported. I personally use systemd-cron which basically is a > wrapper+generator around /etc/crontab and the various /etc/cron.*/ > scripts. Agreed again. My desktop cronjobs are all empty and when I had some they were of the "do this once a week or once a day" variety. I didn't care when they ran, just that they did every so often -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
