Subject: Re: run levels (was Re: The new rc.d stuff...)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Paul Hoffman <email@example.com>
Date: 04/24/2000 17:21:23
At 12:54 AM 4/24/00 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote (in part):
>Run levels are useless.
>rc.d does not fall into this category.
>Given rcorder, we've substantially improved on the original
>So, rc.d makes some sense. However, run levels and all they implied
>were a bad idea. They have no function.
>I see no reason to dogmatically reject System V originated ideas if
>they are good, but when they suck, they should be ignored. Run levels
>suck. They should be ignored.
I try not to agree with Perry too often :-), but I do agree with him on all
of the above.
rc.conf/rc is nice and easy... and probably too limited.
rc.d without run levels gets us 100% of what is needed by at least 95% of
all sysadmins with only a bit more complication than rc.conf/rc.
rc.d with run levels buys us very little and adds a *lot* of complication
to typical sysadmins. The folks who need an extra level or two are probably
quite able to write a script that does the mods they need in rc.d for their
specific startup action.