Re: runlevels [was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases]
I know nothing about runlevel standards, just my opinions:
>>>>> "AK" == Alexander Koch <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
AK: level 1 is without net, 2 is with it all (imo including nfs
AK: and the like) and 3 is xdm, 6 was shutdown or halt or
AK: whatsoever. at least that i remember from some german
I'm no big sysadmin but I think we can use all 1 to 4 levels. One
free runlevel could be enough (in actually, if *I* need some
modifications, I make them by modifying existing runlevels not
creating new ones).
AK: default runlevel is 2 so why should nfs start with 3?
I'd like something similar to:
1: single user
2: multiuser with minimal networking, probably without offering services
3: full networking (NFS, xfs, anonymous ftp, ...)
4: xdm? (yes, it is common on Slackware and RedHat to start xdm
according to runlevel, but maybe Debian /etc/X11/config concept is
5: empty for making special local runlevel?
So if I want to do something without being too used from outer world,
I can switch to level 2 (and I can still telnet or ftp somewhere).
AK: if 3 gets xdm, perhaps gpm should be disabled and the like?
Remark: gpm should be disabled only when it doesn't work as a
BTW, I don't like RedHat concept of empty level *4*. When I upgraded
HW on some RedHat machine, I lowered default level from 5 to 4 in
expection it will disable just xdm. Then I spent an hour looking for
explanation, why many services don't start after changing HW. After I
explored runlevel 4 was empty, I was far from being polite...
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .