Re: [LONG] RH refugee comments & questions
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 06:00:49PM +0200, Patrice Fortier wrote:
> This second problem is much disturbing for me:
> playing with update-rc.d I saw that it was generating a rc2.d/S20apache.
> Starting apache at run level 2???
> Looking in /etc/inittab, I also found:
> Why does debian use the run level 2 instead of 3, as usual, to activate
> Even in the LSB you can read:
> 0 halt
> 1 single user mode
> 2 multiuser with no network services exported
> 3 normal/full multiuser
> 4 reserved for local use, default is normal/full multiuser
> 5 multiuser with xdm or equivalent
> 6 reboot
> Why the hell did the debian developpers changed that?
Please, this has nothing to do with us changing anything. Debian has
been using runlevel 2 as the default for years, long before the LSB was
ever thought of, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was that way before
Red Hat made their first release. For hopefully obvious reasons, we
don't consider "what Red Hat does and their child distributions
inherited" as "usual".
> An other feature that I miss is the [ OK ] [FAILED] at boot for the
> rc?.d/ stuff. You can think it's just a fancy thing, and in fact you're
> right as long as there is only green OK displayed on the screen.
> The red FAILED displayed is very interesting, especially when you
> expected that everything should be fine.
This is really just a style issue (Debian has a more ascetic style than
Red Hat in certain ways), and there is a policy for the "look and feel"
of Debian init scripts
> Why the old inetd is used instead of xinetd?
One of the main reasons is that nobody's written an implementation of
update-inetd (which manages inetd.conf) for xinetd yet, at least as far
as I know. We're moving to the OpenBSD inetd soon, which should at the
very least deal with any security concerns.
> What else?... Ah yes. I had the bad habit to make a new install without
> checking all the hardware drivers that were in the box. For example,
> when I installed a RH 7.3 on a Dell PowerEdge 2600, everything was
> detected, and installed like a charm. With the woody, I had to get
> a driver for the e1000 card on the net, and compile the driver for the
> raid card (perc4) on my workstation to procede with the install.
> This wasn't especially annoying, but I was a bit surprised to go some
> years backward...
Poking around in the archive, it looks like the e1000 driver will be in
the bf2.4 install flavour in the next stable point release.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]