Starting X does not make sense from a remote machine. Starting X sessions remotly makes perfect sense, which is what I am talking about. Fireing up a X server remotely makes also perfect sense, take the example that the X server crashed or you upgraded it or whatever.
X uses the hardware of the computer it runs on, (sarcasm-mode t) And I suppose that program FOO doesn't... (sarcasm-mode nil) so if you start it remote, it still takes over the local display. Bollocks, you are thinking of XDM or the like. You can have a X server that doesn't have a X _client_ running on its console. The point is that the separation is not on a user basis. Whoever happens to login at the console should be allowed to use the sound card, the floppy drive, the tape streamer, the graphics card, etc. All others should not. Says you. I sure want to do my remote backs up without having to sit at the console of the backup machine. This whole allowing users to do thing depending on if they have loged in locally or not is totally a stupid topic and quite pointless. You are essentially asking for users to be treated differently even if they are the same user; utter stupitidy. Users should be treated based on the permissions they have, not on what machine they have loged in on. > Why? And how do you decide what needs "console intervention" and > what doesn't? Isn't the point of GNU/Hurd to allow users to do > whatever they might wish to do without screwing up for others? As with all operating systems, everything should be possible. It's up to the system administrator to choose what (s)he wnats. And the point of the Hurd is to allow the user to decide what they wish to do without screwing up for others. Not having the sysadmin decide what they should be allowed todo. Thats the whole point of the GNU project, more freedom to users. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
