From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 15 14:58:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA26688 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA26675 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA01869; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:54:19 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:54:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199707152154.PAA01869@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Terry Lambert Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: multiple run-levels (was: Re: /etc/init.d/) In-Reply-To: <199707152022.NAA03987@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199707151903.NAA00376@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199707152022.NAA03987@phaeton.artisoft.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert writes: > > > *run* in several *states*, which *could* be represented by seperate > > > run states. > > > > No, they are not 'states'. A state is something that you transition > > to/from, and very few of your configurations are actually 'states' that > > are transitioned to/from. Either you're undocked, or you're not. You > > don't transition only from 'docked/undocked', but you *are* either > > docked/undocked. > > This is silly; are you claiming that I don't "dock" and "undock", > that my machine is only ever turned on when I am "docked" or > "undocked" instead? No, I'm stating that you don't transition from one state to the other the same way everytime. You can move from 'undocked w/serial networking' to 'docked w/ethernet networking', *OR* you can move from 'undocked w/serial networking' to 'docked w/serial networking'. There is no 'state machine' that describes the list of states. Instead of states you have a jumbled mess of configuration, which doesn't map well with 'run states'. As always, you've got a hammer, and everything in the world looks like a nail to you again. The solution you propose is not remotely applicable to the problem faced. Every problems with FreeBSD is resolvable to: 1) FS layering 2) Run levels 3) VM86 mode 4) CVS tree locking 5) Not letting anyone who shows interest hacking the code. Ie; all of Terry's abilities resolve to something in the above class, so all of the problems must be solvable by the above solutions. Nate