From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 15 02:22:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA17283 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.uk.peer.net ([194.117.157.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA17258 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from aledm@localhost) by ns.uk.peer.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27592; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:42:12 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:42:11 +0100 (BST) From: Aled Morris X-Sender: aledm@ns.uk.peer.net To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Stephen McKay Subject: Re: multiple run-levels (was: Re: /etc/init.d/) In-Reply-To: <199707150416.OAA01561@ogre.dtir.qld.gov.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Stephen McKay wrote: > Run levels suck, For what it's worth, I agree with this. One of the major advantages of using FreeBSD over SCO or NT is the simplicity of the system. Adding run levels adds uneccesary complexity. Run levels don't do away with "ps", "init", "/etc/rc" or any of those other tools that we currently use to achieve process control, they just add more cruft, and more to the learning curve that dissuades new users from choosing FreeBSD over the alternatives. If anyone out there is desperate to implement run levels, you could release it as a pkg. Aled -- +44 973 207987 O-