From: Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org
There is nothing wrong with using X11 at runlevel 3. The only thing that can't be present is a display manager (KDM, XDM, GDM etc).
That's _exactly_ what I'm talking about. Run-level 3 starts xdm. Several Linux distros use 2 for multi-user, 3 for multi-user w/X.
Run-level 2 as multi-user w/o networking or w/o NFS was introduced by Red Hat, and any Fedora-based (or RHL-based) distro uses it.
If it is, it is wrong, and doesn't comply with the unix standard (don't remember exactly which, but I studied it when working for Conectiva).
First off, it's not "wrong." Many distros established many different standards well before any standardization efforts. Even Linus admits that he based many things off of SunOS 4.1 (retroactively Solaris 1) and Solaris 2, and Solaris uses 2-3.
[ Remember, Solaris was the original GNU platform. ]
So in that regard, Debian is actually like Solaris in its use of 2-3, instead of Fedora-based 3-5.
Secondly, you are referring to Linux Standards Base (LSB). Specifically, Section 8.5 in the General Section of the latest revision: http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generi...
And even this latest version states: "However, it is not required that LSB-compliant run-time environments use these run levels; the distribution-provided install_initd script may map the run levels specified below to whatever distribution-specified run levels are most appropriate."
It should also be noted that not even Fedora Core's init scripts are fully LSB compliant, and Debian and SuSE do far better in many areas.
LSB even declares RPM as the package standard. But at the same time, one might remember why LSB came into existance -- to try to get standards across largely FC/RHL forks and other RPM distros. As much as it attempts to be platform agnostic, some of its standards are heavily defaulting to RPM ones.
The standard is there. If a distro chooses not to follow it, you can be very sure it will have acceptance problems.
Not nit-pick, but your statement was _exactly_: "Also, run-levels are standarized, and should be the same on all unix-like platforms."
Not only is there _no_ standard for System-V platforms, but pretty much LSB says even Linux distros can do what they want.
There is _no_ "run-level standard" for "unix-like platforms."
When I have time later today (or tomorrow), I'll give out the standard I'm mentoning and will give you a proper reference. Sorry I can't provide it from the top of my head.
LSB 2.1 Core Generic Section 8.5. Again, URL: http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generi...
Just to summarize, this thread was _not_ to "prove you wrong." It was just a reminder that not only do Linux systems vary wildly, but "UNIX-like" systems do as well and you should be careful with assumptions. ;->
-- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:27:38PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:
If it is, it is wrong, and doesn't comply with the unix standard (don't remember exactly which, but I studied it when working for Conectiva).
First off, it's not "wrong." Many distros established many different standards well before any standardization efforts. Even Linus admits that he based many things off of SunOS 4.1 (retroactively Solaris 1) and Solaris 2, and Solaris uses 2-3.
[ Remember, Solaris was the original GNU platform. ]
The original GNU development platform, that is correct. Even tho you are refering to SunOS (prior to 4.1).
So in that regard, Debian is actually like Solaris in its use of 2-3, instead of Fedora-based 3-5.
Secondly, you are referring to Linux Standards Base (LSB).
No, not LSB. It is another standard, much older than that.
The standard is there. If a distro chooses not to follow it, you can be very sure it will have acceptance problems.
Not nit-pick, but your statement was _exactly_: "Also, run-levels are standarized, and should be the same on all unix-like platforms."
Not only is there _no_ standard for System-V platforms, but pretty much LSB says even Linux distros can do what they want.
There is _no_ "run-level standard" for "unix-like platforms."
I'll disagree with you on this as soon as I find the standard I'm talking about.
When I have time later today (or tomorrow), I'll give out the standard I'm mentoning and will give you a proper reference. Sorry I can't provide it from the top of my head.
LSB 2.1 Core Generic Section 8.5. Again, URL: http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generi...
As I said, I was not talking about LSB, let alone 2.1. It is a standard that even AIX (from IBM) follows, even tho I'm not sure about Solaris. I would suppose it does, tho. I'll find it ... Eventually.
Just to summarize, this thread was _not_ to "prove you wrong." It was just a reminder that not only do Linux systems vary wildly, but "UNIX-like" systems do as well and you should be careful with assumptions. ;->
I know it is not. This is just to clarify a technical point that is of interest for us all. A point that we don't agree uppon, and we are both trying to find solid enough arguments to clear a missunderstanding.
You can rest assured I don't take anything as a personal attack easily. I always tend to consider the other person is trying to help me understand something better. Have no worries about it :)
Let me make a even more generic summary. Standarization or no standarization, Linux Distros do have different runlevel characteristic, and that should be taken into consideration. I'll conceed defeat on that point. As for the standarization, I'm still looking for the standard, so I'll wait until my memory is proven to be wrong, which won't be the first time.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 19:51 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
The original GNU development platform, that is correct. Even tho you are refering to SunOS (prior to 4.1).
Well, yes, a lot of GNU was developed prior. But Linus based a lot of his decisions on later versions of the early '90s.
No, not LSB. It is another standard, much older than that. ... I'll disagree with you on this as soon as I find the standard I'm talking about. ... As I said, I was not talking about LSB, let alone 2.1. It is a standard that even AIX (from IBM) follows, even tho I'm not sure about Solaris. I would suppose it does, tho. I'll find it ... Eventually.
It if applies to AIX, but not Solaris, then I give up?
I'll believe you if you can show System-V documentation from AT&T that matches _all_ of the perpetual licensees from their standardization efforts of 1986+. But I have a feeling that AIX, HP/UX, Digital/Tru64 and many others aren't going to match either.
I know it is not. This is just to clarify a technical point that is of interest for us all. A point that we don't agree uppon, and we are both trying to find solid enough arguments to clear a missunderstanding.
Regardless, at this point, Debian, Solaris and several other, System-V style inits _differ_ with Red Hat and this "UNIX-like" standard. That was my point, there is no "standard."
You can rest assured I don't take anything as a personal attack easily. I always tend to consider the other person is trying to help me understand something better. Have no worries about it :) Let me make a even more generic summary. Standarization or no standarization, Linux Distros do have different runlevel characteristic, and that should be taken into consideration. I'll conceed defeat on that point. As for the standarization, I'm still looking for the standard, so I'll wait until my memory is proven to be wrong, which won't be the first time.
Actually, if you find it it will be very useful to me as well. It would be a thorn in the side of many distros, even if all of the perpetual licensees didn't agree to it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 06:35:41PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 19:51 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
The original GNU development platform, that is correct. Even tho you are refering to SunOS (prior to 4.1).
Well, yes, a lot of GNU was developed prior. But Linus based a lot of his decisions on later versions of the early '90s.
So, there is no corelation, since Linux is not a GNU project :) (let the flamewar begin).
No, not LSB. It is another standard, much older than that. ... I'll disagree with you on this as soon as I find the standard I'm talking about. ... As I said, I was not talking about LSB, let alone 2.1. It is a standard that even AIX (from IBM) follows, even tho I'm not sure about Solaris. I would suppose it does, tho. I'll find it ... Eventually.
It if applies to AIX, but not Solaris, then I give up?
As I said, it is not that it doesn't apply to Solaris. It is just that I can't say that, since I don't know.
I'll believe you if you can show System-V documentation from AT&T that matches _all_ of the perpetual licensees from their standardization efforts of 1986+. But I have a feeling that AIX, HP/UX, Digital/Tru64 and many others aren't going to match either.
Not from AT&T ehehehe
I know it is not. This is just to clarify a technical point that is of interest for us all. A point that we don't agree uppon, and we are both trying to find solid enough arguments to clear a missunderstanding.
Regardless, at this point, Debian, Solaris and several other, System-V style inits _differ_ with Red Hat and this "UNIX-like" standard. That was my point, there is no "standard."
Okey. We are disgressing here. I agree with you that the inits are different. In every conceivable way. I'm just talking about runlevels ?)
You can rest assured I don't take anything as a personal attack easily. I always tend to consider the other person is trying to help me understand something better. Have no worries about it :) Let me make a even more generic summary. Standarization or no standarization, Linux Distros do have different runlevel characteristic, and that should be taken into consideration. I'll conceed defeat on that point. As for the standarization, I'm still looking for the standard, so I'll wait until my memory is proven to be wrong, which won't be the first time.
Actually, if you find it it will be very useful to me as well. It would be a thorn in the side of many distros, even if all of the perpetual licensees didn't agree to it.
I will. Eventually. I just need time to look for it, but I'm in the middle of 2 big projects right now, so it might take a few days.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 21:15 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
So, there is no corelation, since Linux is not a GNU project :) (let the flamewar begin).
Linux _is_ a GNU operating system. And the design of Linux is heavily influenced by the preferred GNU platform at the time he designed it over the first few years.
That's what I was referring to, the "influence" on the design.
As I said, it is not that it doesn't apply to Solaris. It is just that I can't say that, since I don't know.
Solaris' run-levels don't match FC/RHL-based ones. ;->
Not from AT&T ehehehe
Then who makes the so-called "UNIX-like Standard" then? We refer to them as System-V -- as in AT&T System V -- style init. So at this point, I'm pretty certain there is no standard.
Okey. We are disgressing here. I agree with you that the inits are different. In every conceivable way. I'm just talking about runlevels ?)
If you mean that run-levels exist, then yes, that's a System-V style init. No disagreement there.
But there is really no "standard" to what each level does -- although most designate 6 for reboot, 0 for shutdown and 1 for single-user. That is about the only commonality.
I will. Eventually. I just need time to look for it, but I'm in the middle of 2 big projects right now, so it might take a few days.
Oh, no rush. I'd just like it for future reference when I run into others. I don't mean to be skeptical, but unless it was AT&T's official System-V init, I don't know how anyone could show it as lineage as the "standard."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:44:26PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 21:15 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
So, there is no corelation, since Linux is not a GNU project :) (let the flamewar begin).
Linux _is_ a GNU operating system. And the design of Linux is heavily influenced by the preferred GNU platform at the time he designed it over the first few years.
That's what I was referring to, the "influence" on the design.
Linux IS NOT a GNU operating system. Linux is Linus Pet Project, and thats all. Linux is not even an operating system, it is just a Kernel and, again, it is not a GNU Kernel. HURD is a GNU kernel.
A Linux distribution (exception being Debian) is not more a GNU operating system than a X11/BSD/Name-Your-License Operating system.
As I said, it is not that it doesn't apply to Solaris. It is just that I can't say that, since I don't know.
Solaris' run-levels don't match FC/RHL-based ones. ;->
Can you elaborate, please.
Not from AT&T ehehehe
Then who makes the so-called "UNIX-like Standard" then? We refer to them as System-V -- as in AT&T System V -- style init. So at this point, I'm pretty certain there is no standard.
I'll find it. Just need time to look for it.
Okey. We are disgressing here. I agree with you that the inits are different. In every conceivable way. I'm just talking about runlevels ?)
If you mean that run-levels exist, then yes, that's a System-V style init. No disagreement there.
But there is really no "standard" to what each level does -- although most designate 6 for reboot, 0 for shutdown and 1 for single-user. That is about the only commonality.
Same answer.
I will. Eventually. I just need time to look for it, but I'm in the middle of 2 big projects right now, so it might take a few days.
Oh, no rush. I'd just like it for future reference when I run into others. I don't mean to be skeptical, but unless it was AT&T's official System-V init, I don't know how anyone could show it as lineage as the "standard."
Same answer :)
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 00:25 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Linux IS NOT a GNU operating system. Linux is Linus Pet Project, and thats all.
Linux _is_ a GNU system. I'm not just saying that like Stallman to get more recognition for GNU. It _is_ a GNU platform, very different than legacy BSD or AT&T System V bases. It's _very_important_ to know this.
Although many "GNU Compatible Systems" use the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), at the heart of _any_ GNU system are the GNU C Libraries (GLibC). That's really a _major_, _technical_ detail!
And then there are the standard utilities and other components that replace the legacy BSD and AT&T ones. Once again, hallmarks of a GNU system, quite different than legacy BSD and AT&T.
Linux is not even an operating system, it is just a Kernel
Combined with the GNU system. Not legacy BSD or AT&T code, but GNU code. This is a very, very, _very_ important technical detail.
and, again, it is not a GNU Kernel. HURD is a GNU kernel.
Never said it was the GNU HURD Microkernel. But Linux is still a GNU system, designed by Linus to be a GNU system. This is _technical_ fact, not some Stallman marketing consideration.
A Linux distribution (exception being Debian) is not more a GNU operating system than a X11/BSD/Name-Your-License Operating system.
My God, so you _are_ about "brand name" and not "technical accuracy." You are so focused on marketing and not reality.
What makes Debian's Linux distribution more of a GNU system than the others? The branding "Debian GNU/Linux"?
Dude, this is technical fact. One of the things I have worked with engineers on in the defense industry is support, building, cross compilers, tools, etc... for countless platforms. It's a technical fact from a developer/integrator standpoint that Linux is a GNU system.
With respect to GNU, there are 3 types of UNIX platforms: - GNU Systems (HURD, Linux) - GNU Compatible Systems (BSD, SunOS/Solaris, most newer BSD variants) - Non-GNU Compatible Systems (several UNIX flavors)
GNU grew up on SunOS/Solaris, so SunOS/Solaris is a GNU Compatible System. Modern 4.4BSDLite-based systems also tend to be GNU Compatible Systems.
I have developed on other, GNU Compatible Systems, VxWorks being a major one. It is largely BSD-based, although designed more for real-time (long story), but is also GNU Compatible.
Linux _is_ a GNU System, because it was built from the "ground up" on clean-room GNU tools, libraries, etc..., unlike BSD or SunOS. And getting back to my _original_point_, that's why Linux has been influenced by SunOS/Solaris.
Can you elaborate, please.
I did before in a previous message.
In Solaris, 2 is multiuser, 3 is X. Many Linux distros are similar.
In anything RHL/FC-based, 2 is multiuser no NFS, 3 is multiuser, 5 is X. This is also the LSB recommendation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Just commenting the main points, since this is becoming way off-topic.
Executive summary: You seem to have a misunderstandment of what the GNU Project is.
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:20:53AM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Although many "GNU Compatible Systems" use the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), at the heart of _any_ GNU system are the GNU C Libraries (GLibC). That's really a _major_, _technical_ detail!
The Linux Kernel doesn't make use of glibc.
Even then, if you look at the glibc license, you will see it is licensed under the LGPL, which allow even comercial software (non-free) to link against it.
And then there are the standard utilities and other components that replace the legacy BSD and AT&T ones. Once again, hallmarks of a GNU system, quite different than legacy BSD and AT&T.
There is no such thing as a "GNU System". Either something is a GNU project, or it is not. GNU is not an idea, it is a name, a brand. And copyright Free Software Foundation.
and, again, it is not a GNU Kernel. HURD is a GNU kernel.
Never said it was the GNU HURD Microkernel. But Linux is still a GNU system, designed by Linus to be a GNU system. This is _technical_ fact, not some Stallman marketing consideration.
No, it is NOT a technical fact. It was designed to be a pet project, and not to be a GNU system.
From Linus' mouth: " I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)"
He is clearly stating it is not GNU, and not going to be GNU. Just a hobby.
A Linux distribution (exception being Debian) is not more a GNU operating system than a X11/BSD/Name-Your-License Operating system.
My God, so you _are_ about "brand name" and not "technical accuracy." You are so focused on marketing and not reality.
If you want technical accuracy, I would like to point you to Linus original post about Linux.
http://www.msfn.org/board/lofiversion/index.php/t40457.html
What makes Debian's Linux distribution more of a GNU system than the others? The branding "Debian GNU/Linux"?
No. Debian is a GNU project.
Dude, this is technical fact. One of the things I have worked with engineers on in the defense industry is support, building, cross compilers, tools, etc... for countless platforms. It's a technical fact from a developer/integrator standpoint that Linux is a GNU system.
I think you are mistaken about what GNU is. GNU is a Free Software Foundation project to create a free Unix-like system. That becomes clear from what you have written beyond this point.
Unless the project is lead, coordinated or endorsed by FSF, it is NOT a GNU project. The copyright of any GNU project is given to the FSF.
Yes, it is correct to call Linux a "GNU Operating System Variant", but Linux is definitively NOT a GNU project.
Actually, to be "technicaly accurate", there is no such thing as a "GNU System", not even from GNU/FSF.
I recomend you to carefuly read about the Free Software Foundation, the GNU Project, and the history of Linux. Also, please read and text of the LGPL (not GPL).
Take care.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 03:47 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Just commenting the main points, since this is becoming way off-topic.
You're telling me? I tried to make a specific point in a specific context. And you're going all over the place.
Executive summary: You seem to have a misunderstandment of what the GNU Project is.
Sigh. Man, you're going way outside the context I was even working in.
No, it is NOT a technical fact. It was designed to be a pet project, and not to be a GNU system. From Linus' mouth: " I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" He is clearly stating it is not GNU, and not going to be GNU. Just a hobby. ... If you want technical accuracy, I would like to point you to Linus original post about Linux. http://www.msfn.org/board/lofiversion/index.php/t40457.html
Are you for real? Really? I think you're bouncing around so many concepts, I can't even get you to stop for a moment to focus on one.
I think you are mistaken about what GNU is. GNU is a Free Software Foundation project to create a free Unix-like system. That becomes clear from what you have written beyond this point.
Again, are you for real? Or am I just imagining this?
Unless the project is lead, coordinated or endorsed by FSF, it is NOT a GNU project. The copyright of any GNU project is given to the FSF. Yes, it is correct to call Linux a "GNU Operating System Variant", but Linux is definitively NOT a GNU project.
Besides the fact that you are substituting in context left and right.
Actually, to be "technicaly accurate", there is no such thing as a "GNU System", not even from GNU/FSF.
Um, Stallman, GCC, GLibC and other developers I know use the exact phrase "a GNU System" regularly. I'm talking in the context of interoperability, which was my original focus.
I recomend you to carefuly read about the Free Software Foundation, the GNU Project, and the history of Linux. Also, please read and text of the LGPL (not GPL).
This is just beyond insulting. This is basically what I do at Fortune 100 companies as an architect, especially when it comes to legal considerations, history, etc...
Apparently one second you think something is just a kernel, then a project, then an OS, etc... From an application programmer interface (API) standpoint, there are GNU systems, GNU compatible systems and non- GNU compatible systems.
That's all I was talking about. It's very important to understand this from an API/developer/integrator standpoint.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm taking this off-list, and answering in private.
Sorry for everyone about this whole mess.
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:06:41AM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 03:47 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Just commenting the main points, since this is becoming way off-topic.
You're telling me? I tried to make a specific point in a specific context. And you're going all over the place.
Executive summary: You seem to have a misunderstandment of what the GNU Project is.
Sigh. Man, you're going way outside the context I was even working in.
No, it is NOT a technical fact. It was designed to be a pet project, and not to be a GNU system. From Linus' mouth: " I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" He is clearly stating it is not GNU, and not going to be GNU. Just a hobby. ... If you want technical accuracy, I would like to point you to Linus original post about Linux. http://www.msfn.org/board/lofiversion/index.php/t40457.html
Are you for real? Really? I think you're bouncing around so many concepts, I can't even get you to stop for a moment to focus on one.
I think you are mistaken about what GNU is. GNU is a Free Software Foundation project to create a free Unix-like system. That becomes clear from what you have written beyond this point.
Again, are you for real? Or am I just imagining this?
Unless the project is lead, coordinated or endorsed by FSF, it is NOT a GNU project. The copyright of any GNU project is given to the FSF. Yes, it is correct to call Linux a "GNU Operating System Variant", but Linux is definitively NOT a GNU project.
Besides the fact that you are substituting in context left and right.
Actually, to be "technicaly accurate", there is no such thing as a "GNU System", not even from GNU/FSF.
Um, Stallman, GCC, GLibC and other developers I know use the exact phrase "a GNU System" regularly. I'm talking in the context of interoperability, which was my original focus.
I recomend you to carefuly read about the Free Software Foundation, the GNU Project, and the history of Linux. Also, please read and text of the LGPL (not GPL).
This is just beyond insulting. This is basically what I do at Fortune 100 companies as an architect, especially when it comes to legal considerations, history, etc...
Apparently one second you think something is just a kernel, then a project, then an OS, etc... From an application programmer interface (API) standpoint, there are GNU systems, GNU compatible systems and non- GNU compatible systems.
That's all I was talking about. It's very important to understand this from an API/developer/integrator standpoint.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele- mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism. So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 04:13 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
I'm taking this off-list, and answering in private. Sorry for everyone about this whole mess.
Please do not bother me with this.
I am talking different contexts than you are (and trying to stick with 1), so you are never going to agree with me. So it's redundant to even try, because even if I try to make a technical statement, you continue to take it in a market or project context.
And even in some cases, what you say is only proving my point. E.g., like the fact that Linux complemented GNU in the absence of the HURD kernel, replacing SunOS/Solaris as the preferred solution for a GNU System.
I am very sorry I questioned anything about the "standard" run-levels for "UNIX-like" systems. And I am very sorry I was asserting some GNU deployment, lineage and resulting interoperability.
I will keep my technical knowledge to myself with regards to your posts. This will be my last response to you, ever.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:27:38PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:
From: Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org
There is nothing wrong with using X11 at runlevel 3. The only thing that can't be present is a display manager (KDM, XDM, GDM etc).
That's _exactly_ what I'm talking about. Run-level 3 starts xdm. Several Linux distros use 2 for multi-user, 3 for multi-user w/X.
Run-level 2 as multi-user w/o networking or w/o NFS was introduced by Red Hat, and any Fedora-based (or RHL-based) distro uses it.
Oh, just one thing. I don't have Fedora here to test, otherwise I would check myself.
Are you sure it is starting xdm at runlevel 3 ? I noticed several distros are not definining the runlevel as a kernel paramter on grub/lilo, which will bypass the one defined on inittab.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 20:30 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Oh, just one thing. I don't have Fedora here to test, otherwise I would check myself. Are you sure it is starting xdm at runlevel 3 ? I noticed several distros are not definining the runlevel as a kernel paramter on grub/lilo, which will bypass the one defined on inittab.
No.
I'm saying RHL/FC-based distros use the 3-5 combination, with 2 being multiuser w/o NFS or possibly networking.
Many other distros, and even some UNIX flavors, just use 2-3. They don't have a separate multiuser w/o NFS or networking.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 07:12:24PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 20:30 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Oh, just one thing. I don't have Fedora here to test, otherwise I would check myself. Are you sure it is starting xdm at runlevel 3 ? I noticed several distros are not definining the runlevel as a kernel paramter on grub/lilo, which will bypass the one defined on inittab.
No.
I'm saying RHL/FC-based distros use the 3-5 combination, with 2 being multiuser w/o NFS or possibly networking.
Many other distros, and even some UNIX flavors, just use 2-3. They don't have a separate multiuser w/o NFS or networking.
Actually, you can have runlevel 2 with out without networking. The only requirement is that NFS should not be enabled on 2. Also, on run level 5, XDM must be enabled. Those two are facts I know for sure.
Now, I know that you can have NFS either active or not on runlevel 3. So, while I was writing this, I figured I really don't remember any requirement that xdm MUST be disabled on runlevel 3. Only that it must be enabled on runlevel 5. Again, it might be wrong, and the requirement for runlevel 3 is there too. I really need to find that documentation.
Yes, I saw many Unix flavors that mostly use 2-3. Always with NFS disabled on 2. Sometimes network too, but not always. I never saw any unix flavors with XDM active on 3 off shelf. Of course, I have seen more than once admins configuring xdm on runlevel 3, and even a couple times starting xdm using rc.local. But that is besides the point here.
Still looking ...
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 21:20 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Actually, you can have runlevel 2 with out without networking. The only requirement is that NFS should not be enabled on 2. Also, on run level 5, XDM must be enabled. Those two are facts I know for sure.
Then about 75% of the UNIX-like world differs and differs wildly.
Now, I know that you can have NFS either active or not on runlevel 3. So, while I was writing this, I figured I really don't remember any requirement that xdm MUST be disabled on runlevel 3. Only that it must be enabled on runlevel 5. Again, it might be wrong, and the requirement for runlevel 3 is there too. I really need to find that documentation.
I'm just trying to figure out what you're referring to. LSB is the only thing I can think of.
Yes, I saw many Unix flavors that mostly use 2-3. Always with NFS disabled on 2. Sometimes network too, but not always. I never saw any unix flavors with XDM active on 3 off shelf. Of course, I have seen more than once admins configuring xdm on runlevel 3, and even a couple times starting xdm using rc.local. But that is besides the point here. Still looking ...
No rush. I'm more curious now than anything. If you say Connectiva was using it as a point-of-reference, then I'm really just curious.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:46:10PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 21:20 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Actually, you can have runlevel 2 with out without networking. The only requirement is that NFS should not be enabled on 2. Also, on run level 5, XDM must be enabled. Those two are facts I know for sure.
Then about 75% of the UNIX-like world differs and differs wildly.
Then 90%+ of UNIX flavors I used so far fall into that 25%. And I have no mean UNIX experience either, even tho I don't call myself a guru (SunOS, Solaris, OSF/1, HP/UX, lots of different Linuxes, AIX from 2 up to 4). And I was a professional AIX admin (inside IBM) for some time, so at least for that one I can testify with deep knowledge.
Now, I know that you can have NFS either active or not on runlevel 3. So, while I was writing this, I figured I really don't remember any requirement that xdm MUST be disabled on runlevel 3. Only that it must be enabled on runlevel 5. Again, it might be wrong, and the requirement for runlevel 3 is there too. I really need to find that documentation.
I'm just trying to figure out what you're referring to. LSB is the only thing I can think of.
LSB only refers to Linux. The standard I'm talking about predates LSB.
Yes, I saw many Unix flavors that mostly use 2-3. Always with NFS disabled on 2. Sometimes network too, but not always. I never saw any unix flavors with XDM active on 3 off shelf. Of course, I have seen more than once admins configuring xdm on runlevel 3, and even a couple times starting xdm using rc.local. But that is besides the point here. Still looking ...
No rush. I'm more curious now than anything. If you say Connectiva was using it as a point-of-reference, then I'm really just curious.
Errr, I never made such a claim :) I said I was using it when I was working for Conectiva. As a matter of fact, I was following a lot of standards that Conectiva never mandated. Just my old paranoid side speaking :)
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 00:29 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Then 90%+ of UNIX flavors I used so far fall into that 25%.
UNIX or Linux?
If Linux, being that you were at Connectiva, then yes, anything formerly Red Hat-based is typically going to be 2-3-5.
But what UNIX are you talking about? System V style init scripts are typically the foundation of anything post-1986 and non-BSD. But there was never any declared "run-level standards," and different UNIX flavors vary.
And I have no mean UNIX experience either, even tho I don't call myself a guru (SunOS, Solaris, OSF/1, HP/UX, lots of different Linuxes, AIX from 2 up to 4). And I was a professional AIX admin (inside IBM) for some time, so at least for that one I can testify with deep knowledge.
AIX is just one UNIX flavor. I think you might be mistaking AIX as the "standard" UNIX? I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from.
Errr, I never made such a claim :) I said I was using it when I was working for Conectiva. As a matter of fact, I was following a lot of standards that Conectiva never mandated. Just my old paranoid side speaking :)
Okay ... (still scratching my head)
If there is one thing I've learned to do, it's check the /etc/inittab or /etc/rc script the first time I get on a new UNIX/Linux flavor.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:24:33AM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 00:29 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Then 90%+ of UNIX flavors I used so far fall into that 25%.
UNIX or Linux?
If Linux, being that you were at Connectiva, then yes, anything formerly Red Hat-based is typically going to be 2-3-5.
Thats another misunderstanding. Conectiva was never RedHat based, unless you consider any distribution that uses RPM to be RedHat based.
Conectiva (1 N only), the company, once released a Conectiva RedHat Linux, which was the RedHat Linux translated and localized to pt_BR. Since Conectiva Linux 1, it was a completely separated distribution.
Actually, Conectiva has always been more closely related to Mandrake and Debian than to RedHat.
There was no relation between Conectiva RedHat Linux and Conectiva Linux, except they were released by the same company.
And I have no mean UNIX experience either, even tho I don't call myself a guru (SunOS, Solaris, OSF/1, HP/UX, lots of different Linuxes, AIX from 2 up to 4). And I was a professional AIX admin (inside IBM) for some time, so at least for that one I can testify with deep knowledge.
AIX is just one UNIX flavor. I think you might be mistaking AIX as the "standard" UNIX? I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from.
Yes, AIX is just one UNIX flavor, that is why I pointed my experiences on other flavors too.
Errr, I never made such a claim :) I said I was using it when I was working for Conectiva. As a matter of fact, I was following a lot of standards that Conectiva never mandated. Just my old paranoid side speaking :)
Okay ... (still scratching my head)
If there is one thing I've learned to do, it's check the /etc/inittab or /etc/rc script the first time I get on a new UNIX/Linux flavor.
Which are two completely different beasts.
The Init scripts will change, a lot, even between different versions of the same unix flavor.
But, then again, it is completely useless for me to continue arguing with you until I provide the document I said I would. Just writing e-mails about it won't make my point any stronger.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 03:52 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Thats another misunderstanding. Conectiva was never RedHat based, unless you consider any distribution that uses RPM to be RedHat based. Conectiva (1 N only), the company, once released a Conectiva RedHat Linux, which was the RedHat Linux translated and localized to pt_BR. Since Conectiva Linux 1, it was a completely separated distribution. Actually, Conectiva has always been more closely related to Mandrake and Debian than to RedHat.
Mandrake was based on Red Hat originally. Dude, please stop. I'm just trying to show why the run-levels are the same as Red Hat, because of the lineage. Nothing more.
God I'm sorry I even pointed out some of this stuff. I'm sorry I crossed you. You are completely right and I am completely wrong. Just please stop, my head is hurting from this.
It doesn't matter what I say, how I say it, in what context I say it, it will be ignored and assumed to be something else.
Which are two completely different beasts.
The point is that every BSD or AT&T flavor I've seen has at least one, if not both. From there, I can start tracing how the system boots, etc... Systems vary wildly, so only by tracing the full boot can you be sure.
If you want to get mega-anal, the init actually depends on what the kernel calls. But typically it's the init program (which typically uses /etc/inittab) or maybe an rc script (typically /etc/rc).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:13:30AM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
I'm just trying to show why the run-levels are the same as Red Hat, because of the lineage. Nothing more.
Agreed.
God I'm sorry I even pointed out some of this stuff. I'm sorry I crossed you.
You didn't crossed me. Maybe it is because it is late here, and english is not my primary language. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.
I just get repetitive sometimes, due to lack of better language tools.
The point is that every BSD or AT&T flavor I've seen has at least one, if not both. From there, I can start tracing how the system boots, etc... Systems vary wildly, so only by tracing the full boot can you be sure.
Perfect. I completely agree with you about this init system issue.
Best Regards,
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 03:52:14AM -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
But, then again, it is completely useless for me to continue arguing with you until I provide the document I said I would. Just writing e-mails about it won't make my point any stronger.
I just found the document I was refering too.
Uppon rereading it, I noticed that the runlevels were stated as a "convention", not a "standard".
So I was mistaken, and would like to withdraw my previous point about there being a standard regarding this.
Sorry about that.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-
Bryan J. Smith -
Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> -
Rodrigo Barbosa