Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 09:29:58 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Cc: dyson@iquest.net, wes@softweyr.com, tlambert@primenet.com, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux to be deployed in Mexican schools; Where was FreeBSD? Message-ID: <199811291429.JAA01054@y.dyson.net> In-Reply-To: <19981129183019.H456@freebie.lemis.com> from Greg Lehey at "Nov 29, 98 06:30:19 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey said: > > OK. The *idea* of run modes seems to make sense, and I wouldn't > change the System V method on a system which had it, but how useful is > it really? Consider: > > Run state Meaning BSD init > 0 halt halt > 1 single user shutdown > 2 multi user, Whaat?? > no network > 3 multiuser (multiuser; stop single user) > 4 undefined > (most systems) can't see any equivalent on PCs > 5 PROM monitor > 6 reboot reboot > > Where's the important difference? > Add additional packages, and see that BSD init ends up more and more inadequate. > > > SysV init has an established set of standards for usage of > > startup/shutdown files. It doesn't solve ALL problems, but moves > > forward, other than just staying idle. > > Sure, but as I said, that's all a question of scripts. > Also, it is all a question of C-code, but a framework enables better organization. However SYSV-init is implemented, vendors do use it. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811291429.JAA01054>