[CentOS] Re: Reboots -- LSB 2.1 Core Generic Section 8.5

[Rodrigo Barbosa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:27:38PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at 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-generic.html#RUNLEVELS  

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 at suespammers.org>
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCn41npdyWzQ5b5ckRAmBIAKCXqAG1U1B5b0BLSq+6lW379GfaKwCfTYmY
3pHltqviy+okg/OhYFEcfrs=
=5knv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----