From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 14 21:31:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA04016 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au (daemon@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au [130.102.2.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04011 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.6) id OAA18880 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:31:45 +1000 Received: from localhost.dtir.qld.gov.au by ogre.dtir.qld.gov.au (8.7.5/DEVETIR-E0.3a) with SMTP id OAA01561; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:16:01 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199707150416.OAA01561@ogre.dtir.qld.gov.au> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: multiple run-levels (was: Re: /etc/init.d/) References: In-Reply-To: from Brandon Gillespie at "Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:28:19 +0000" Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:16:00 +1000 From: Stephen McKay Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tuesday, 15th July 1997, Brandon Gillespie wrote: >As Terry mentioned, the concept of run-levels is sound, its just that the >SysV implementation where '1' is single user and '2' can be something else >and '3' is sometimes network level, etc, SUCKS I'm one of the (raving monster looney) objectors to the run level concept. Even if you fix the crap that System V has, I still find the whole concept intensely objectionable. There are reasons to have a maintenance mode, and an operational mode, which we call single user mode and multi user mode. There is no need for the other junk. Terry described a complex way to use his mobile computer which boils down to a desire to: 1) add and remove network connections 2) add and remove hardware while continuing in multiuser mode. No more magic than that. Appearing and disappearing network connections can be dealt with using some program similar to routed. Adding and removing hardware will be more difficult, but won't be handled by run states. It will have to be handled by device drivers. Run levels suck, and I'm going to hold my breath until you all forget about them. Run states also suck, because they are too simplistic. Why consider the presence of a network connection as different from the presence of my window manager (say). I've got at least 6 window managers I could use, but I don't need run states for that. When I change my mind, I kill one and start another. When I need different networking, I run the connect program. You can call these things different "states", but you don't gain anything by coding all possible arrangements and wiring them into a directory structure. Fuzzy thinking here will just lumber us with more cruft. Stephen.