On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:45:19PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > > "Paul E Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:11:55AM -0400, Ron Peterson wrote: > >>On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 10:40:46AM -0400, Ron Peterson wrote: > >> > >>> Can anyone explain why Debian's runlevel policy seems to have strayed > >>> so far from traditional System V? Why is xdm/gdm/kdm etc. in runlevel > >>> three, for example? > > > >Debian, as a distribution, really doesn't use runlevels 3-5, but it does > >set them up in skeletal fashion as a convenience to a local sysadmin who > >wants to use them for local purposes. Mostly what is there is just what > >Debian puts in runlevel 2. It saves a bit if copying by the sysadmin. I > >don't think it is governed by policy. The policy is that 3-5 are for > >local use.
> Basically the debian point of view is that runlevels are the wrong solution > to the problem. Perhaps the BSD's are better in this regard. However, to date, Debian remains a System V derivative. I would rather see Debian chuck the runlevel concept altogether than capriciously cripple it (out of spite, perhaps.. :) > If you need to be able to interactive decide what services and subsystems > start up automatically, then you should use a truely interactive booting > system. At the moment, I'm not really interested in an interactive boot. But I do think it's a bit crazy that booting single mode attempts to start network services and nfs. That can be a crippling position to be in if you have nfs problems... > Part of the reason for the trditional system is that packages are qquite > hard to remove in RedHat-style systems. If a debian sysadmin does not what > a display manager (Funny name, as they are more like a login-manager) they > can just uninstall it. > > The vast majority of the time a 'traditional' system is booted into either > runlevel 5 or runlevel 3. So often in fact that making all debian runlevels > equivlent to that makes good sense. Basically it makes life easier on the > end user. In the quite rare case that some of the services are unwanted the > services can be stopped by hand or 'init=/bin/bash' can be used. I usually have a banana for breakfast. So the only breakfast food I should have in the house is a banana. If I don't want a banana, I should make a special trip to the store, or scrounge around for a couple of raisins. ?? The (hopefully) quite rare case you mention can be the case when you have to troubleshoot an important production server. In such a case, doing an init=/bin/bash doesn't give you a lot to work with. I'd rather have init=init, unless I'm truly desperate. Sure, once a machine is in production, you generally leave it alone. But during development/testing/troubleshooting, it's convenient to be able to easily forklift a number of services in or out of use. Personally, I like something like: 1 - no networking 2 - networking, local filesystems only 3 - networking + nfs 4 - <twilightzone> 5 - networking + nfs + display manager There may be other non-runlevel ways to do the same thing. Point is, Debian currently provides neither; it has to be done by hand. Not terribly difficult work, but of course that's all relative to how much experience you have. I don't agree that it makes sense to make all the runlevels the same. Whether runlevels are the best way to determine boot options or not, they are currently the de-facto way it's done, and making them different is useful. I am certainly open to other better ways of accomplishing the same thing. Best. -- Ron Peterson Network & Systems Manager Mount Holyoke College http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rpeterso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
