From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 12 11:39:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA14381 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:39:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA14367 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA25990; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:27:53 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199701121927.MAA25990@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: DEVFS permissions &c. To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:27:53 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "J Wunsch" at Jan 12, 97 06:11:20 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > And please - PLEASE - no "runlevels"! > > Yeah. Actually, we do already have runlevels: S, 0, [234] (depending > on the actual SysV vendor), and 6. :-) > > But i agree that extending this to more runlevels is useless. I have > yet to see a single SysV implementation that groks all runlevel > transitions without silly actions like starting up subsystems if you > lower the runlevel etc. That is because they are not truly runlevels, they are runstates, with concordant service configuration lists. There as *some* attempt to use them as levels (0 = single user, 1 = multiuser, 2 = networking enabled, 3 = exported services enabled, 6 = shutdown) in many SVR3/SVR4 implementations... only 6 violates the level ordering, really. 4 and 5 were reserved for user defined system and service activation above and betond the system stuff. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.