[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: runlevels remodeled

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:23:04PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:

> Personally, I hate that it isn't a standardized way to get down to a
> minimal system, or a standardized way to start everything bug *dm/X.

I do not think that X should be anything special. Yes, there is the case
when you have X misconfigured and you have crappy hardware so you cannot
go back to text mode after X has started; but this could be handled in a
more generic way by introducing "interactive startup" where the startup
script of every service asks if it should be started or not. That would
be much more useful than a new run level.

There is a similar argument for networking: there are cases when being
able not to start networking is good but this could also be addressed by
an interactive startup without a new run level.

(Well, if you implement interactive startup using a new run level, that
I would definitely support.)

Not being able to cleanly go down to single-user is another matter which
can be considered as a normal bug.


     MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
                Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Reply to: