Re: CentOS-6 Status updates

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> 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
> }

Originally runlevel 2 was multiuser, 3 was multiuser with networking and 
network daemons.  Without serial terminals, that wouldn't make a lot of 
sense...

>> On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty
>> surprise if you were expecting X11!

I think adding 5 for X was a Linux kludge.  And in the original sysV 
design, I believe each runlevel was executed in sequence up and down. 
That is, everything started in runlevel 1 and 2 started on the way to 3 
and could be sequenced properly that way instead of jumping directly to 
3 or 5 and having to have everything specified to start there.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos