From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Sep 14 1:35: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from laurasia.com.au (lauras.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.93.142]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07D7151FF for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 01:34:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@laurasia.com.au) Received: (from mike@localhost) by laurasia.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA37133 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:34:54 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from mike) From: Michael Kennett Message-Id: <199909140834.QAA37133@laurasia.com.au> Subject: No runlevels To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:34:54 +0800 (WST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hello All, Yesterday, I had reason to take my system down into single-user mode. I suddenly realised that there was no 'telinit' program to change runlevels -- indeed, unlike Linux, *BSD doesn't support runlevels. Is there is a good reason for not supporting runlevels? In general, I prefer the BSD approach into system initialization (the rc scripts) than the SysV approach (a jungle of scripts). But on occasion I can see the need for *different* initializations. The SysV runlevels makes this easy, whereas for *BSD, I can only think of adding a 'runlevel=BLAH' variable into /etc/rc.conf, and having explicit testing of this variable thru' the rc scripts (which I think is horrible :-). I'm interested in knowing the different opinions people have on this. Regards, Mike. P.S. In the end, I rebooted into single user mode. I'd rather not have rebooted as it ruined by uptime :-) I've since read in the manpages that sending TERM (kill -TERM 1) to init takes the system into single user mode. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message