[wplug] runlevel question

[Brian S. Woolstrum]

> > Runlevels are a matter of debate between BSD-style and SysV-style systems.
> > I always forget which is which and which one linux is, but one jumps
> > straight from one level to the other and stops services that shouldn't be
> > running and starts ones that aren't but should be. (This is linux)
> > The other starts in runlevel 0, and starts everything listed in runlevel
> > 1, then starts everything listed in runlevel 2, and then everything in
> > runlevel 3, etc. So on this type of system, which I think HPUX is one, if
> > you list something in runlevel 2 and in runlevel 3, it will be started
> > twice.
> >
> Oh!  So now I understand where this concept of run *level* comes from.  I had
> always wondered about this, because Linux's init, which is the only one I
> know, doesn't look at all heirarchical (Linux's init is SysV-style, by the
> way).  I had wondered if some other flavor of init had a heirarchy, and Viola!
> There it is!
>
> I love the smell of learning something new in the morning... :o)
>
> Hagbard
>


Easy to forget which one linux is, because it is both.
Redhat and Mandrake distributions are SysV style init, but
Slackware is BSD style.

At the risk of starting a flamewar, I always prefer
Slackware distributions, and absolutely despise having to
do anything with Redhat. However, runlevels are the one
thing that I feel that Redhat made the right choice with
going SysV.  SysV is much easier automate changes for,
since pretty much each daemon get's it's own
start,stop,restart script.  BSD style seems to lump to many
things into one script.  For example:  the mounting of nfs
partitions, starting of inetd, starting of named, and
starting of routed are all done from one single script.