On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 05:28:01PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 03-Jul-01, 17:50 (CDT), Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > > the benifit is leaving what all 4 of those runlevels do solely up to > > YOU not some so called standards body. > > <sarcasm>So we should get rid of the FHS as well? Perhaps the POSIX > standard?. Certainly Debian Policy must go!</sarcasm>
you should really read debian policy. a great deal of it is there to protect the admin's ability to configure things as he wants. examples: packages are not allowed to clobber config files initscripts must be config files so the admin can alter them and not have changed blown away [many more] the FHS is giving me MORE control over things not less. by mandating that arch independent data such as man pages and docmentation go in /usr/share i can easily make that an nfs export for example. > Okay, I've read further down in the replies and see some valid > points. But "it restricts what I can do" is not a useful objection, as > that's pretty much what *all* standards do: Limit choices so that the > user can rely on specific/consistent behaviour. As a practical matter, s/user/developer/ the FHS is a good standard since it enforces distributions to set things up in a way that is more useful to me the admin. i am thus free to do things which like splitting the tree apart into NFS mounts and such. > I'd bet that very few people mess much with the default runlevels, and > I'd further bet that most who do end up with something very similar to > the LSB proposed system. so what? the choice for how runlevels are to be configured belongs to the admin, not the lsb. furthermore this `runlevel == X login' nonsense won't work on debian anyway, unlike redhat we allow xdm to be removed, it won't necessarily get installed by default. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgpB9uDeCjfkx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
