On Tuesday 09 August 2005 16:29, Sven Mueller wrote: > >>Me too. Or some equivalent which can use _names_ instead of numbers for > >>the runlevel. Of course those names could simply be "1" "2" etc. by > >> default. > > > > let's not call it runlevels. Let's call it profiles. /me ducks. > > <grin> Profiles (even hardware-dependent-profiles) are no invention of > that Redmond company. And in a way, I would say that calling it profiles > would be a lot closer to reality than calling them "runlevels" which is > an extremely abstract name IMHO.
Please don't! Calling runlevels "Profiles" is like calling them "states" -- it's not wrong, but it could mean a lot of other things, too. "That's the wrong profile, you are using." may be an appropriate thing to say just after startup when someone wonders why his X server is not coming up, but it may not always be that clear (just think of some browser implementing an offline and an online profile, on a system with an offline and an online "profile"). If you really want to stay with "profiles", call them "system profile" or anything more specific. Cheers, Johannes
pgpdQT2eaiwZl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ initscripts-ng-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/initscripts-ng-devel
