[ this discussion is getting out of hand.  cgd:  how about you create
  a tech-init (or whatever) mailing list and let it continue there ? ]

   I shouldn't have to know which processes are part of nfs to shut it
   down, any more than I should need to remember whether it's '-n 4' or just
   '-4' to bring up four nfsiods.  Sure, I *do* remember - but I shouldn't
   have to type it.  And if there's some tricky magic to bringing something
   up, I shouldn't need to type it all the time.

no, you shouldn't.

(here i go again, wanting stuff from AIX ...)

i loved the way under AIX i could type this:

stopsrc -s inetd

and inetd would shut down (actually, there were a few minor nits about
the implimentation, but the *idea* was well though out, i seem to
remember thinking).  this is vastly more preferable than

sh /etc/init.d/nfs stop

to me.

   The run level and start/stop script thing is a major piece of the modularity
   a live system sometimes needs.  I would easily use 10+ runlevels if I had
   them.  Not because I'd use any of them all that often, but because
   'init 8' is a lot shorter than 'skill -9 nfsiod mountd nfsd telnetd inetd...'

what i don't like about 'init 8' is this:  what the HELL does `8' mean ?
is it some arbitrary number ?  does any of the system rely on run-level
8 being something special ?

i don't mind the idea of run-level's, exactly, but, if we're going to use
this mechanism, we *must* do something better than what svrx has to offer.
not because we're bigots and can't look at svrx without cursing, but
because the idea can be implimented in a *much* simpler, more configurable
and understandable way, with very little extra work.

(to everyone ...)

many people, so far in this discussion, have said they don't like X (not
X11, just any idea) for some particular reason because of Y, where Y is
an implimentation issue, not a design one.  we need to look at this, um,
problem from a higher stance, and try to work out *what* people are after,
or, at least, think they are after, and then design a solution to fit
this, where said solution is as clean, flexible and attractive as
possible.


the impressions i'm getting from people who want change are:

 o  /etc/rc and /etc/rc.local aren't configurable enough.
 o  single and multiuser aren't enough different system states (i'm
    deliberately avoiding using `run levels' here).
 o  it's really nice to be able to turn off, turn on, or restart any
    individual system in a simple manner, without knowing much more
    than a command or two.
 o  it's nice for `other' packages to install their boot-time 
    requirements simply and without "my" help.

the impressions i'm getting from people who don't want change are:

 o  it's easier to follow the boot sequence if it's all defined in
    one place.
 o  i don't want things installing their own boot-time requirements
    without knowning exactly what it is (this is in conflict with point 4
    above).
 o  why have more than single & multi user `system states' (conflict with
    point 2 above) ?


i'm sure there are others i've forgotten about/missed, etc, but i think
these are the main thoughts that have been occuring in this thread.

i've also noticed that there is a significantly larger percentage of the
people contributing to this discussion calling for a change to something
like the system v init.

point:  i think it's time we all stopping repeating what others have said
so far, and started to actually get something tangible out of this, rather
than continuing the way we've been.

i'm willing to coordinate/collect ideas/etc in my Ample Spare Time (tm)
for this discussion, to try to get to my point above.


.mrg.

ps.  sorry for the length, but, somethings just Need To Be Said.