Subject: Re: run levels (was Re: The new rc.d stuff...)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/24/2000 22:49:28
[ On Monday, April 24, 2000 at 17:21:23 (-0700), Paul Hoffman wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: run levels (was Re: The new rc.d stuff...)
> rc.d with run levels buys us very little and adds a *lot* of complication
> to typical sysadmins.
That's just not true.
The extra complication is almost entirely hidden from anyone who is
simply managing a basic system.
*A*typical sysadmins might find a *different* system more complex until
they learn it, of course, but that's supposedly a temporary situation.
Furthermore a system with traditional "run levels" is only a tiny bit
more complex than the current rc.d system and if a more intuitive state
machine (eg. something along the lines of what Peter Seebach has
proposed) it might actually make the system *simpler* from a truly
typical sysadmin's point of view!
> 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.
Nor is that necessarily true. The people who need finer control over
the system state are not necessarily systems programmers by definition.
They could just as easily be junior sysadmins who wouldn't know an
elegant solution if it kicked them in the butt.
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>