On 04 Jun 2003 09:51:25 -0400
"Mark L. Kahnt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 03:00, Kevin Mark wrote:
>>On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 02:30, Kevin Mark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 00:05, Travis Crump wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is a Debian list, not Red Hat. Runlevels 2-5 are identical
>>>> by default.
>>>
>>> Why is this done? This defeats the purpose of runlevel which is a
>>> basic Uni*x idea.
>>
>> Well it appears I just checked:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01898.html
>> And there are people with my point of view. So no point in continuing
>> this here.-K
>
> Read that message, and the follow-ups again. It *is* done the way we've
> said, and that is the Debian position (I'm not sure if it is explicitly
> stated in Policy, as I haven't read the entirety of Debian Policy yet.)
> Directing someone to use runlevel 3 to not get [gkwx]dm is not going to
> solve things on a system defined by default Debian configuration.
While I agree 100% with the Debian position on this, I just wanted to
write that in defense of the poster to whom you're replying, I don't
think he was disagreeing with you about how Debian does it in that
last post (with the link). I read his post as saying "Well, this
link shows that there are other people who agree with me about how
Debian *should* do it; it also shows that this debate (about how
Debian *should* do it) has occurred before; so there's not much
point in having that debate again here."
-c
--
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
