systemd discussion

[Tim]

On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 16:56 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> I never needed all of those run levels, It was just confusing and
> useless complexity. And 2-3 of them were always unused anyway, so
> getting rid of them was sensible.

Most of the time, we don't.  But then it can be handy for some boxes to
have different run-levels.

e.g. A server that's usually left alone on the shelf, occasionally
remote managed by command line.  Even less occasionally, you might plug
a keyboard and monitor into it, and want a full graphical environment
while you work on it.  It's handy to be able to start-up/shut-off all
the unnecessary user-interfaces in one go.

e.g. Fixing up a machine that's just gone out of whack.  It's handy to
be able to easily start up in a mode where nearly all services are not
started up.  So you can do repairs, or reset the list of what will
start-up, and get a computer to actually finish booting when something
it used to demand existed no-longer does (like NFS-mounted resources
when you unplug a machine to use in another location).

I'm yet to read how this important functionality, to a large number of
people will be handled, with the move away from the old system.

-- 
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.  I
read messages from the public lists.