On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:57:58 -0600 > schrieb Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > All I want is a good decision to be made and have a crond that is not > > buggy. Therefore I think that it is foolish not to present the > > available options in an accurate light. > > fcron is absolutely not buggy as far as I can tell. I'm using it since > years now and it always did what it should do. I tried dcron when it > was adopted by this Arch user, but switched back to fcron pretty soon, > because dcron was indeed not reliable. > > cronie is no option for me because of the lack of integrated anacron > features. > > But all those arguments including not having a buggy crond have been > discussed many times before by a lot of users, TUs and devs. > > But then dcron's new developer said that he wanted to fix those bugs > and so dcron was kept as the default. This was the only reason as far > as I recall. > > I understand Sven-Hendriks e-mail just as a reminder of this fact and > that dcron's upstream still hasn't fixed the issue. I don't think that > Sven-Hendrik wanted to start a new discussion about that even if it > started again nevertheless. > > Heiko > Look, I agree with you, fcron is not buggy, and I did not call fcron buggy. I called dcron buggy. cronie has anacron features and I think is a good option. fcron looks like a good option too, I just think they should both be considered, thats all I am saying.
