On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:50:08PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > > Ditto runlevels: of course we aren't going to mess with existing > > setups, but I personally would rather the defaults were what was in > > the LSB: the benefit of having 4 identical runlevels has so far > > escaped me. > > the benifit is leaving what all 4 of those runlevels do solely up to > YOU not some so called standards body.
And if the defaults are changed to match the LSB, how does that change your ability to set the runlevels to whatever you want? You have to edit the runlevels now, why would you care about having to edit the runlevels after they were made to match the LSB? That, at least, buys some compatibility. Steve -- Steven Smolinski => http://arbiter.ca/
