I know nothing about runlevel standards, just my opinions: >>>>> "AK" == Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AK: level 1 is without net, 2 is with it all (imo including nfs AK: and the like) and 3 is xdm, 6 was shutdown or halt or AK: whatsoever. at least that i remember from some german AK: distribution. I'm no big sysadmin but I think we can use all 1 to 4 levels. One free runlevel could be enough (in actually, if *I* need some modifications, I make them by modifying existing runlevels not creating new ones). AK: default runlevel is 2 so why should nfs start with 3? I'd like something similar to: 1: single user 2: multiuser with minimal networking, probably without offering services 3: full networking (NFS, xfs, anonymous ftp, ...) 4: xdm? (yes, it is common on Slackware and RedHat to start xdm according to runlevel, but maybe Debian /etc/X11/config concept is better) 5: empty for making special local runlevel? So if I want to do something without being too used from outer world, I can switch to level 2 (and I can still telnet or ftp somewhere). AK: if 3 gets xdm, perhaps gpm should be disabled and the like? Remark: gpm should be disabled only when it doesn't work as a repeater. BTW, I don't like RedHat concept of empty level *4*. When I upgraded HW on some RedHat machine, I lowered default level from 5 to 4 in expection it will disable just xdm. Then I spent an hour looking for explanation, why many services don't start after changing HW. After I explored runlevel 4 was empty, I was far from being polite... Milan Zamazal -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .