On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Kurt Wall wrote: > The argument that a 10K shell/perl/python/whatever script is simpler than > writing a one-line wrapper around the same script and executing it from > /etc/cron.d/ begs the question.
No, it does not. It is one thing to ask an user to take a look at a script somewhere in /etc to modify it for his system and another thing to ask him to hack soime script in /usr/bin. There is the argument that those cron scripts don't have necessarily to go in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin, that one can create an additional directory for them, at which point I fail to see what we saved over not going with /etc/cron.daily in the first place. > This objection is to specifying a particular product, not to the idea. If > we specify anacron, Okay, anacron-like. To date anacron is the only one that does what we need, so we could at least give it that much credit and say that we want an anacron-like type of setup. > and a better mousetrap comes along next year, vendors > either support an inferior product, break the standard in order to switch > to the new product, or ship both, adding to their workload (not that > managing 77k is so bad, but you get the idea). anacron is perfectly compatible with vixie-cron, so there are no worries about switching and maintaining compatibility. > Is specifying the behavior we want worse than specifying a particular > implentation? No, but the problem is that we can not always define things in some standard way and it is much easier to tell people exactly waht we are after.... Cristian -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Gafton -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Red Hat Software, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
