[RE: PROPOSAL: standard run levels (draft 1)]
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> - 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: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: standard run levels (draft 1)
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- 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, ...
"halt" and "shutdown" isn't the same. At least Solaris and IRIX use
--- End Message ---