<quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > Jeff my wurry here is that a very elegant and clever system invented by > Tompson Ritchie et al is disgarded because the <no doubt clever> ubuntu > developers don't understand why it was done, and trashed it as useless.
Wait, we're crediting Thompson and Ritchie for SysV style init now? :-) > I'm working on migrating as POS system (1000s systems, worldwide) from RH9 > to ubuntu. Unless I can reverse the run level stuff, I can't use it! > Consider: a box boots as 1) a thin client 2) a thick client 3) a stand > alone order taker 4) A manager PC. Elegantly handled by run levels, > different services in different runlevels corresponding to the different > roles. This really doesn't appear to be a problem that runlevels elegantly solve, though they are a hammer you could use for that nail if you wanted to. I'd have to ask why you'd want a single machine to be used in such different contexts - it sounds like a theoretical use case to me. Points one and two are configuration cases, and something that your display manager can solve. Points three and four are modes of use, which can be solved by maintaining appropriate user (or functional) accounts. Indeed, you could solve all four at once by running separate, secured X servers if that was your fancy! If you'd like assistance integrating Ubuntu into your POS deployment plan, let me know. > From my perspective it would be nice if they did stuff eg no root login > and you could put it back just as easily (sudo passwd root) Debian, and thus Ubuntu, does not approach runlevels the same way that Red Hat (and similar) systems do. - Jeff -- GUADEC 2006: Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain http://2006.guadec.org/ "I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity." - George W. Bush (by way of Miles Nordin) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
