Re: runlevel policy

2005-09-19 Thread Ron Peterson
on 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,

Re: runlevel policy

2005-09-19 Thread Joe Smith
"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 ha

Re: runlevel policy

2005-09-19 Thread Paul E Condon
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

Re: runlevel policy

2005-09-19 Thread Ron Peterson
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? I realize the concept of 'traditional' Sys

runlevel policy

2005-09-19 Thread Ron Peterson
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? -- Ron Peterson Network & Systems Manager Mount Holyoke College http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rpeterso -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL