On 06/16/2011 12:58 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM,m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
while () {
crash
respawn
}
Originally runlevel 2 was multiuser, 3 was multiuser with networking and
network daemons. Without serial terminals, that wouldn't make a lot of
sense...
On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty
surprise if you were expecting X11!
I think adding 5 for X was a Linux kludge. And in the original sysV
design, I believe each runlevel was executed in sequence up and down.
That is, everything started in runlevel 1 and 2 started on the way to 3
and could be sequenced properly that way instead of jumping directly to
3 or 5 and having to have everything specified to start there.
No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and
run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think
it was used also in DGUX for X.
Oops meant to say SCO UNIX and ISC UNIX not linux.
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
