On 06/16/2011 12:58 PM, Steve Clark wrote: > On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM,m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>>> runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has >>> In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun >>> OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would >>> while () { >>> crash >>> respawn >>> } >> Originally runlevel 2 was multiuser, 3 was multiuser with networking and >> network daemons. Without serial terminals, that wouldn't make a lot of >> sense... >> >>>> On System V and Solaris runlevel 5 is halt so you might get a nasty >>>> surprise if you were expecting X11! >> I think adding 5 for X was a Linux kludge. And in the original sysV >> design, I believe each runlevel was executed in sequence up and down. >> That is, everything started in runlevel 1 and 2 started on the way to 3 >> and could be sequenced properly that way instead of jumping directly to >> 3 or 5 and having to have everything specified to start there. >> > No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think > it was used also in DGUX for X. > > Oops meant to say SCO UNIX and ISC UNIX not linux. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110616/66b0e5cf/attachment-0005.html>