_<service> users [Was: startup error for pflogd]

Max Laier max at love2party.net
Mon Jun 21 23:59:46 GMT 2004

On Monday 21 June 2004 18:46, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 04:39:10PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> > This might seem like OpenBSD/paranoia, but my opinion on it is: It's done
> > so why not port it over? It also helps to keep the diff down (which means
> > less work).
> >
> > If there is no resistance against "yet another user", I will add _pflogd.
> I would prefer just 'pflogd' until it is discussed if we want to follow
> the _<service> way.

Okay, let's talk about this then: Any strong optionions one way or the other?

I think this is a bikeshed. There is no technical argument (to my knowledge) 
that suggests either. My vote is for "_<service>" to keep the diff down, but 
that is not an argument of course. Others have said that it:
 - helps to recognize system processes
 - helps to see "bad things" happening (1000 _pflogd is not a good sign)
 - resolves possible namespace problems

I can't think of a propper contra, but maybe "It looks ugly" qualifies ;) Tell 
me if I overlook something. Thanks.

Best regards,				| mlaier at freebsd.org
Max Laier				| ICQ #67774661
http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/	| mlaier at EFnet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20040622/ac27107e/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list