Subject: Re: Another changer, another changer problem
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/12/1998 20:29:41
[ On Sun, October 11, 1998 at 11:07:16 (-0500), email@example.com wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Another changer, another changer problem
> In message <Pine.NEB.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Curt S
> ampson writes:
> >I coded up a bit of proof-of-concept stuff for the new NetBSD
> >startup dependency system that Perry and Matt were doing some work
> >on. This made the whole concept of `runlevels' obselete by instead
> >allowing you to turn on and off named daemons or named groups of
> >daemons. So you wouldn't for example, have to have your radius
> >server running just to run xdm on that machine as well.
> Oh, that's very nice. That does sound like a vast improvement on runlevels.
> (And, if you want, you can always implement runlevels in terms of it.)
Anyone who knows anything about AT&T System V Unix will know that they
also came up with a similar improvement about 10 years ago or more
(SAC). The AIX guys did something similar too.
Now of course AT&T Unix kept the multi-level init scheme too. I think
I'd rather have both as options too.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>