On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:53:27PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 12:21 AM, Gaijin wrote:
> Ice
> >Weasel won't run many web pages as well as it does in Windows Firefox,
> >including my Linksys router's configuration page,
>
>
> Iceweasel will run everything Firefox on Windows will,
On 12/27/2009 12:21 AM, Gaijin wrote:
Ice
Weasel won't run many web pages as well as it does in Windows Firefox,
including my Linksys router's configuration page,
Iceweasel will run everything Firefox on Windows will, excepting things
where the problem is Linux versus Windows. It might hel
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 01:37:03PM +0100, Mario Lang quoted:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>
> > it’s been a long-standing tradition on Linux to have 6 started getty
> > processes, in tty1 to tty6. However this doesn’t correspond anymore to
> > the way we use our machines.
I use all six, a
Josselin Mouette writes:
> it’s been a long-standing tradition on Linux to have 6 started getty
> processes, in tty1 to tty6. However this doesn’t correspond anymore to
> the way we use our machines.
> * I don’t think we need more than 2 of these. They are still
> useful for server
On Tue,24.Nov.09, 15:26:33, Jon Dowland wrote:
> What I would like to see is something like the following.
> I've no idea whether it is achievable technically, but I'd
> be interested to know what others thought.
>
> * the display manager gets the first VT. If there is no
> display manager conf
I believe it would be useful to be able to configure preallocated VTs.
I know a few people whose first action at boot is starting something
like a monitoring application on VT6, dynamic allocation would break
this habit.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
w
What I would like to see is something like the following.
I've no idea whether it is achievable technically, but I'd
be interested to know what others thought.
* the display manager gets the first VT. If there is no
display manager configured, a TTY is assigned instead.
(really, in the absenc
Fabian Greffrath writes:
>> Good question. I guess they could be handled like the first text VTs:
>> ready to be started by pressing enter, on a configurable list
>> of /dev/ttyS? devices.
>
> How about the following idea:
>
> Introduce a configuration directory (e.g. /etc/inittab.d) in which
> p
Good question. I guess they could be handled like the first text VTs:
ready to be started by pressing enter, on a configurable list
of /dev/ttyS? devices.
How about the following idea:
Introduce a configuration directory (e.g. /etc/inittab.d) in which
packages can drop files to claim for alloc
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
>>> Just because it is a tradition doesn’t mean it’s the correct way.
>> So far I haven't seen any argument as to why it shouldn't be the correct
>> way.
>
> It’s broken because:
> * there are race
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> We remove entirely the getty respawning from /etc/inittab. Instead, a
> new daemon is started by a regular init script. This daemon does the
> following:
> * Opens all /dev/tty1 to tty6 and display a d-i-like “press enter
>
On Mon Nov 16 11:07, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> We remove entirely the getty respawning from /etc/inittab. Instead, a
> new daemon is started by a regular init script. This daemon does the
> following:
> * Opens all /dev/tty1 to tty6 and display a d-i-like “press enter
> to activate t
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
>> > Just because it is a tradition doesnât mean itâs the correct way.
>> So far I haven't seen any argument as to why it shouldn't be the correct
>> way.
>
> Itâs broken because:
> * the
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:39:06 +0100
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> > > Just because it is a tradition doesn’t mean it’s the correct way.
> > So far I haven't seen any argument as to why it shouldn't be the
> > correct way.
>
> It’s
Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 14:29 +0100, Fabian Greffrath a écrit :
> > * Current situation is far from perfect.
> > * New GDM upstream, as is, is completely broken.
>
> Would it be possible to just stick with GDM 2.20 and maintain it as a
> fork (just as you do until now)?
It’s ver
* Current situation is far from perfect.
* New GDM upstream, as is, is completely broken.
Would it be possible to just stick with GDM 2.20 and maintain it as a
fork (just as you do until now)?
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen un
Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 14:19 +0100, Frans Pop a écrit :
> How would gettys on serial (and equivalent) ports be handled in this
> proposal?
Good question. I guess they could be handled like the first text VTs:
ready to be started by pressing enter, on a configurable list
of /dev/ttyS? device
Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> > Just because it is a tradition doesn’t mean it’s the correct way.
> So far I haven't seen any argument as to why it shouldn't be the correct
> way.
It’s broken because:
* there are race conditions in the way VTs are all
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> We remove entirely the getty respawning from /etc/inittab. Instead, a
> new daemon is started by a regular init script. This daemon does the
> following:
> * Opens all /dev/tty1 to tty6 and display a d-i-like “press enter
> to activate this console” in them.
> * Provide
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:07:52 +0100
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 10:33 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> > I don't see any real arguments against the set-up as it is now or
> > for a new way to do it.
>
> There are no real arguments for keeping the current setup either
Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 11:21 +0100, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette, le Mon 16 Nov 2009 11:07:52 +0100, a écrit :
> > * Opens all /dev/tty1 to tty6 and display a d-i-like “press enter
> > to activate this console” in them.
> > * Provide a very simple interfac
Josselin Mouette, le Mon 16 Nov 2009 11:07:52 +0100, a écrit :
> * Opens all /dev/tty1 to tty6 and display a d-i-like “press enter
> to activate this console” in them.
> * Provide a very simple interface to reserve a VT, that can be
> queried by the display manager.
A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
Am Sa den 14. Nov 2009 um 15:45 schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> it???s been a long-standing tradition on Linux to have 6 started getty
> processes, in tty1 to tty6. However this doesn???t correspond anymore to
> the way we use our machines.
Yes. I
Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 à 10:33 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> I don't see any real arguments against the set-up as it is now or for a
> new way to do it.
There are no real arguments for keeping the current setup either.
> Just because GDM is broken doesn't mean we should
> change a syste
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:45:11 +0100
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it’s been a long-standing tradition on Linux to have 6 started getty
> processes, in tty1 to tty6. However this doesn’t correspond anymore to
> the way we use our machines.
> * I don’t think we need more than 2 of these.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 07:13:39AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Of course, if no *dm is used, then the system should logically default
> to N consoles with the first one on tty1. I'd say that N should, in
> such case, be greater than 2.
This adds much more complexity to the getty configurati
Hello,
I think the problem only happens for desktop startup.
Say you _don't_ start X at boot, this is what happens:
- 6 ttys are occupied
- startx will use the next free tty7, which is what I expect if I don't
specify vt to X.
In this case dynamic allocation is good.
Say instead you have *dm at
On Sun,15.Nov.09, 07:13:39, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> Not considering the technical backgorund (which is of course an easy
> stance), it could be really interesting to have *by default* the
> default X session on tty1, when a display manager is used, and
> something like 2 other console session
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 03:45:11PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> * For desktop machines, the display manager starts on tty7, which
> means there is a tty switch to display it. This causes a small
> latency and can also create some bugs when you’re using a
> graphic
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:06:27PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> If Fedora jumps off a cliff (I wouldn't put it past them ;-) should we
> do it?
No, but what does this have to do with the current thread?
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 12:36 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:29:33 +0100, Thilo Six wrote:
>
> > Christian Perrier wrote the following on 15.11.2009 07:13
> >
> > > Not considering the technical backgorund (which is of course an easy
> > > stance), it could be really inte
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:29:33 +0100, Thilo Six wrote:
> Christian Perrier wrote the following on 15.11.2009 07:13
>
> > Not considering the technical backgorund (which is of course an easy
> > stance), it could be really interesting to have *by default* the
> > default X session on tty1, when
Hello
Christian Perrier wrote the following on 15.11.2009 07:13
> Quoting Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be):
>
>>> * I don't think we need more than 2 of these. They are still
>>> useful for servers or when some disaster happens in the GUI, but
>>> who opens 6 console sessions n
Quoting Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be):
> > * I don't think we need more than 2 of these. They are still
> > useful for servers or when some disaster happens in the GUI, but
> > who opens 6 console sessions nowadays?
>
> I still have 12 console sessions open, and use screen t
Hi,
* Does upstart make things like dynamic allocation of VTs
possible?
Upstart doesn't do anything special WRT to VTs. You can constantly
respawn a getty on /dev/tty3, or you can constantly respawn openvt
getty, or you can run a script once saying "assign me a VT" and then
s
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 03:45:11PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it's been a long-standing tradition on Linux to have 6 started getty
> processes, in tty1 to tty6. However this doesn't correspond anymore to
> the way we use our machines.
> * I don't think we need more than 2 of t
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Hi,
>
> itâs been a long-standing tradition on Linux to have 6 started getty
> processes, in tty1 to tty6. However this doesnât correspond anymore to
> the way we use our machines.
> * I donât think we need more than 2 of these. They are still
> use
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 14 novembre 2009 à 17:42 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
* Josselin Mouette [091114 17:26]:
I guess you mean as long as there is no negociation between gdm and
whatever decides where gettys go?
GDM does try to use a VT that is not currently in use - althoug
Le samedi 14 novembre 2009 à 18:22 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> * Josselin Mouette [091114 17:58]:
> > > So gdm does not negotiate but just claims "first!".
> >
> > What else can it do? It has to manage its VTs for itself. Currently it
> > is simply forced to use the ones starting from tty
* Josselin Mouette [091114 17:58]:
> > So gdm does not negotiate but just claims "first!".
>
> What else can it do? It has to manage its VTs for itself. Currently it
> is simply forced to use the ones starting from tty7, but it is arbitrary
> and inconsistent.
There are those things called 'confi
Le samedi 14 novembre 2009 à 17:42 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> * Josselin Mouette [091114 17:26]:
> > > I guess you mean as long as there is no negociation between gdm and
> > > whatever decides where gettys go?
> >
> > GDM does try to use a VT that is not currently in use - although ther
* Josselin Mouette [091114 17:26]:
> > I guess you mean as long as there is no negociation between gdm and
> > whatever decides where gettys go?
>
> GDM does try to use a VT that is not currently in use - although there
> can be race conditions.
So gdm does not negotiate but just claims "first!".
Le samedi 14 novembre 2009 à 16:40 +0100, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> > * Does upstart make things like dynamic allocation of VTs
> > possible?
> > * Otherwise, shouldn’t we replace the getty processes started by
> > init by a small daemon that can allocate them as we
Josselin Mouette, le Sat 14 Nov 2009 15:45:11 +0100, a écrit :
> * I don’t think we need more than 2 of these. They are still
> useful for servers or when some disaster happens in the GUI, but
> who opens 6 console sessions nowadays?
Blind people and crazy people who always
Hi,
it’s been a long-standing tradition on Linux to have 6 started getty
processes, in tty1 to tty6. However this doesn’t correspond anymore to
the way we use our machines.
* I don’t think we need more than 2 of these. They are still
useful for servers or when some disaster happens
45 matches
Mail list logo
