Laurence Hurst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Scott Robbins wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
>> >> > command line (which you can reach via <ctrl><alt>-f1) or I think
>> >> > you can append 3 to the kernel line...
>> >>
>> >> That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the
>> same.
>>
>> ?!?!?! 2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps. But 3 and 5 are the
>> same in Debian/Ubuntu? That's not like *any* other version of *Nix.
>> <snip>
> Debian's configuration (at least wrt 3 and 5 being aliases for the same
> runlevel) is very similar to Slackware and Gentoo. The number and use of
Haven't used slackware since, um, '95 or so.
> runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
while () {
crash
respawn
}
> tried to address this) and different conventions have been used in various
> distributions (and, move widely, unices) - the use of 7 runlevels out of a
> possible 10 also appears to be more convention than any hard-and-fast
> rule. That said the convention used by CentOS does appear to be the most
> common (and closest to the LSB's definition) in use by Linux distros
> today.
>
> On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty
> surprise if you were expecting X11!
<g>
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
