| Stephen Gran on 15 Feb 2008 04:27:41 -0800 |
|
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:53:42PM -0500, Matt Mossholder said: > > Why 2 was chosen, and the old networkless runlevel 2 done away with, I > have no idea. It could have been implemented within upstart's > configuration, they just chose not to. This is inherited from Debian. Debian has always had runlevels 0,1,6, and all the others. By default, runlevels 2,3,4 and 5 are treated the same, and left to the local admin to configure differently if that's how they want them. The seperate set up of different runlevels is a redhat'ism in the linux world (I know many other *nixes do it, too, but not all that many linuxes bother any more). -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Stephen Gran | The proof of the pudding is in the | | steve@lobefin.net | eating. -- Miguel de Cervantes | | http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|