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. -- 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/20110616/48d7a631/attachment-0004.html>