[clug] Runlevel 5 vs 3 and startx

Michael James clug at james.st
Fri Nov 25 06:28:41 GMT 2005

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:56 am, Peter Barker wrote:

> My servers run at runlevel 2,

My understanding of "server" and "runlevel 2"
 make that a bit of an oxymoron.

> I prefer "no X". Some of the servers are in China.
> Not much point having a graphical console when I'm in Canberra...

Difference is whether you _ever_ log in locally.
If you never do, then it's worth nothing, so any cost is too much.

> Running X also pokes the video hardware
> in ways that servers don't require.

Until the day you do, then it's too late to set up the graphics.
Pride ensures I don't often "rush to the console to fix it".
Humility insists there be a console to rush to.

In the new light of this thread,
 here's my rough characterisation of runlevels:

1) Single user	only for deep sysadmin
2) Bare network	just to make sure it's up before adding services
3) all services 	stop here if unconfigured or flaky graphics
4) not used	(perhaps services kicked out of 3?)
5) up with X	Thunderbirds* are go!  THE default runlevel.


PS:	*The home server came from thunderbirdcomputing.com.au.

Konqueror has gotten so clever for its own boots
  that it has forgotten what a web browser is for.

More information about the linux mailing list