Maybe I can shed some light on this ** Manoj Srivastava ::
> > That common is common enough? > > Not really. There is nothing to indicate that how you > fashioned your run levels would make sense for, say, me. > People whoi really want tailored run-levels often have > very definite ideas about how these run-levels would be > tailored; it is unlikely that a predefined solution > designed by committee in Debian would suit their needs, > and they would have to roll their own, anyway, and a > predefined solution would just get in their way. > > _Why_ did you not create you own run level schema, BTW, if > you have indeed needed them so often? (I haven't felt that > itch yet, or I would have; creating differentiated run > levels is not exactly rocket science). I think this all evades the real questions, that are: (1) LSB -- which Debian's policy vows to follow -- mandates the default differentiated runlevels. Why are not doing it? (2) The differentiated runlevels by default *do* have practical, and in many cases important, utilizations (the X-freezing is a good example). Why not? (3) Substituting diferentiated runlevels by the old, 3-runlevel scheme is relatively easy, as it is to create otherwise customized runlevels, independently of where one comes from. So, why not? (4) It *does* generate an unnecessary difference between Debian and *all* *other* distros, with no reasonable motive at all. IE, IMHO, Debian should adopt the 6-runlevel scheme dictated by the LSB (0=off, 1=single, 2=multi,no-net, 3=multi, 4=5=multi+DM, 6=reboot) because (1) it's praxis to the other distros, (2) it's in the LSB and (3) there is no good reason not to. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]