[RE: PROPOSAL: standard run levels (draft 1)]

[Robert Current <rob@current.nu>]

Sorry, I think we emailed eachother on this one, hitting reply, and I
think both were ment to go to the list.

-- 
"Robert W. Current" <rob@freshmeat.net> - email
http://chem20.chem.und.nodak.edu     - work stuff
http://www.current.nu                - personal web site
http://freshmeat.net                 - editorial coordinator
"Hey mister, turn it on, turn it up, and turn me loose." - Dwight Yoakam

--- Begin Message ---

• To: current@plains.NoDak.edu (Robert Current)
• Cc: hpa@transmeta.com
• Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: standard run levels (draft 1)
• From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>
• Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 07:19:45 -0800 (PST)
• Message-id: <199904021519.HAA21536@cesium.transmeta.com>
• In-reply-to: <3704DF0A.9B26663B@plains.nodak.edu> from Robert Current at "Apr 2, 99 09:15:22 am"

> > Runlevel 5 has recently become widely used outside the Linux world to
> > indicate machine shutoff.  I guess it should halt if the machine isn't
> > capable of shutting itself off.  This would push xdm down into
> > runlevel 4.
> 
> Or shift everything up one?
> 
> 0 single user mode
> 1 multiuser with no remote networking
> 2 normal - full multiuser with networking
> 3 xdm or equivalent
> 4 reserved for local use...
> 5 halt
> 6 reboot
> 
> Looks more logical that way anyhow..  Means several distributions will
> have to change, but someone is going to have to change anyhow.  The most
> logical way should be used.
> 
> BTW, Who uses 5 for shutdown? IRIX, Solaris, DEC-UNIX, SCO, BSD, ...
> Who?

"halt" and "shutdown" isn't the same.  At least Solaris and IRIX use
it.

	-hpa

--- End Message ---