On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:18:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 09 juin 2005 à 10:53 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > Now, that is why we have runlevel 1. But in most cases, wasting > > runlevels to things that could just as easily be fixed by ending the > > attempts to start is silly. > > How would these runlevels be "wasted"? We're only talking about the > default configuration, not about something a system administrator > couldn't change.
In theory. In practice, many third-party applications will make assumptions about the availability and configuration of runlevels, and will break horribly if anything is different from what they expect; this has happened on those RedHat systems that I've tried this on. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
