Lisi wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > The traditional solution would be to boot single user mode with S or > > 'single' and make corrections from there. Alternatively you can > > disable gdm/kdm/xdm temporarily and then reboot to the full system > > which will then be a text console. > > Once we are thinking in terms of run-level by number, why not just use "1" > (without the quotation marks!) which on a Debian system is the CLI? Or, of > course, choose single user in GRUB. Runlevel 1 is almost universially used to implement single user mode. When you ask why not use 1 instead of "single" the answer is that there isn't any reason. I just think it more clear to ask for single user mode directly and not jump to the runlevel that you know implements it. But you can if you know that information. No reason not to. To see Debian's documentation on runlevels look here: /usr/share/doc/sysv-rc/README.runlevels.gz To look to see how different systems have implemented runlevels see this Wikipedia page. I think it does a good job of capturing the differences. I consider this information must know info for talking about runlevels. Make sure you look at the Unix System V table because that is the grandfather of all of the present systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runlevel Bob P.S. The confusion that results from people looking today (as opposed to twenty years ago) at runlevels is one of the reasons people want to move to the new parallel boot process. Every system has implemented these numbers slightly differently. There isn't consistency across vendors. And I wouldn't want there to be! Because Debian has the better system in this case and I wouldn't want it to be forced to change to something worse such as one of the other vendor's offerings. Which is what would happen if it were standardized. The new parallel boot process sidesteps the issue entirely by moving to something completely different.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature