Subject: Re: Geek Appreciation Day (Boston)
To: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/03/2000 14:45:07
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Andrew Brown wrote:
# >Now, if we can do a skeletal runlevel implementation (i.e. we handle things
# >as we do now: We have a single-user runlevel and multi-user runlevel with
# >the other levels to be filled in as needed), it probably won't be so bad.
# >If we can do it *right*. IF. BIG - I say, BIG IF, there.
# allow me to interject here for a second. as far as i can
# "pedantically" count them, we currently have four (er...five) run levels:
# a) single user
# b) multi user (which include networking and nfs stuff)
# c) hardware (or "press any key to reboot") 
# d) power off (for people for whom apm or whatever can turn the machine off)
# e) rebooting
#  do sparcs go to the ok prompt here? i don't have one, so i don't
I think that state is better referred to as 'halt'. i386s don't halt,
really, they pause, but: powerdown/halt/reboot/single/multi, yeah, that's
about right. Oh, yeah: : Yes.
# i never really understood the distinction between S (and s) and 1 in
# solaris. calling them different "run-levels" seems pedantic in and of
I'd like to see us skip the single-letter naming convention for run-levels
and just run symbolically.
I think, by the way, that 1 will actually shut some other things down before
going to S.
# in the spirit of bsd...i think it's fair to say that you can do that if
# you want to. hey! why not roll up some init patches to make it spew
# the contents of various files at various "levels"? :)
# printf("New run level: %ld\n", random());
Well, :-), not quite.
BSD: For The Network Generation