Re: CentOS-6 Status updates

[Steve Clark <sclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/16/2011 12:58 PM, Steve Clark wrote:

On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:

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.

No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think
it was used also in DGUX for X.

Oops meant to say SCO UNIX and ISC UNIX not linux.

--
Stephen Clark
NetWolves
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netwolves.com

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