Subject: re: take 2; which way should we go for /etc/rc...
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/03/1999 19:20:37
[ On Saturday, December 4, 1999 at 10:03:55 (+1100), matthew green wrote: ]
> Subject: re: take 2; which way should we go for /etc/rc...
> here's a classic case of why runlevels are a bad idea.
If you strictly mean "runlevels" as in those "init" states traditionally
named "s0123456abc", then yes, un-named and/or poorly defined runlevels
are a bad idea.
(However, that said I don't think there's been much confusion about what
each runlevel is intended for though at least in the official SysV since
release 3, and indeed Solaris has always been very explicit about what
they mean too. The fact that some SysV derivatives have wandered away
from the flock is no grounds for tarring the whole concept as bad.)
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>