Subject: Re: run levels (was Re: The new rc.d stuff...)
To: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Peter Seebach <email@example.com>
Date: 04/24/2000 10:57:45
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>I've never seen run levels used the way you mention it. Never. Period.
>Zippo. I've never even heard of it anecdotally from anyone
>else. Unless you can give me a concrete example of a place that
>actually uses them, I am disinclined to belive in them.
I can't speak for *large* places, but:
* Amiga SVR4 used 2 for multiuser, 3 for multiuser + network
* other users have been reported using 2 for multiuser, 3 for
multiuser + network, 4 for multiuser + network + NFS exports,
and perhaps 5 for XDM running
>You can claim, of course, that I'm just imposing my tastes on the
>world and that I'm not omniscient. That's true. However, NetBSD is
>very much a meritocracy of taste. We don't add everything -- we add
>things very much based on our sense of aesthetics and
>quality. Therefore, subjective judgments are sometimes needed, and
>I'd say in this case, the general consensus is that runlevels are lame.
Runlevels, as they exist in SVR4, are probably lame, but the only real problem
is a shoddy implementation, and the lack of namespace.
Fix those, and you've got a feature I would personally love to have.