[ On Monday, April 24, 2000 at 20:03:55 (-0700), Jonathan Stone wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: run levels (was Re: The new rc.d stuff...) 
>
> In message <20000425024928.B41DEE4@proven.weird.com>,
> Greg A. Woods writes:
> >
> >[ 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.
> 
> Greg, it *is* true for many of us. If it's not true for you, then I'd
> guess you need to recalibrate how you think of many (most?) of the
> rest of the members of this list.  (Not intended as a flame; more that
> if you keep on with incorrect assumptinos like that, you're just not
> communicating effectively with your audience.)

Well, let's first be clear:  I should have noted that I was specifically
reacting against the "adds a *lot* of complication" bit.

I will agree with you that it might not offer much to at least the vocal
segment of current-users (other than perhaps myself :-).....

> >The extra complication is almost entirely hidden from anyone who is
> >simply managing a basic system.
> 
> That's not just incorrect, its insulting. The first time I ever ran
> into sysadmining Linux, the runlevel goop was a twisty, nasty mess.
> It's not hidden at *all*.

Let's also be clear that I'm not talking about Linux, and in
particular not RedHat Linux!  I agree that they have made a nasty,
twisty, mess of system configuration (at least as of the last time I had
the misfortune of trying to figure it out).

Indeed a decent run-level system would not get in the way of anyone
doing *normal* system administration (i.e. adding and upgrading
software, enabling and disabling services, setting hostnames and IP
addresses and related parameters, etc.).  In fact it wouldn't
necessarily even have to be fully understood by the basic sysadmin.
I've taught non-computer people to use SysVr4 inittab and friends with
only a few minutes of instruction and a couple of notes and examples.

> >*A*typical sysadmins might find a *different* system more complex until
> >they learn it, of course, but that's supposedly a temporary situation.
> 
> No, it isn't.  Runlevels continue to be a mess. Different vendors use
> runlevels inconsistently. There is no architecture behind them, or how
> to use them.  Perry is correct.

You're spouting pure F.U.D. here.  Nobody said anything about trying to
be consistent with other vendors or even about copying any given vendor.

> >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!
> 
> *If* it was implemented sanely and *without* the abomination of
> rc?.d/{K,S}[0-9][0-9] symlinks, perhaps. But from a sysadmin's
> viewpiodint,that bears little or no resemblance to traditional
> SysV runlevels.

I think you're confusing issues here and spreading more F.U.D.
Certainly what Peter proposed bears no resemblance at all to the
/etc/rc?.d scheme, not in any of its incarnations.

(BTW, anyone using symlinks for /etc/rc?.d is doing things wrong -- hard
links are the correct way as they provide additional essential
information that a "stateless" symlink cannot.)

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>