Re: user not authorized to run X, strange variant

2000-12-13 Thread David Zoll
Erik Steffl wrote: > > sena wrote: > > > > On 12/12/2000 at 11:35 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: > > > my point was that these options do not help in what I think is by far > > > most common situation. then again, I have no lies neither statistics to > > > support this:-) > > > > > > I mean the m

Re: user not authorized to run X, strange variant

2000-12-12 Thread sena
On 12/12/2000 at 14:40 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: > that's the problem. the default is secure but the most typical (my > assessment) setup cannot be made secure as you have to let anybody run > X. what's the use of security measure that has to be disabled in most > cases? > > so while I agree w

Re: user not authorized to run X, strange variant

2000-12-12 Thread Erik Steffl
sena wrote: > > On 12/12/2000 at 11:35 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: > > my point was that these options do not help in what I think is by far > > most common situation. then again, I have no lies neither statistics to > > support this:-) > > > > I mean the most common situations should be solved

Re: user not authorized to run X, strange variant

2000-12-12 Thread sena
On 12/12/2000 at 11:35 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: > my point was that these options do not help in what I think is by far > most common situation. then again, I have no lies neither statistics to > support this:-) > > I mean the most common situations should be solved first, then special > case

Re: user not authorized to run X, strange variant

2000-12-12 Thread Erik Steffl
sena wrote: > > On 12/12/2000 at 09:33 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: > > and how come Xwrapper.config is not found by dpg -S Xwrapper.config? > > Is there any documentation for it? > > > On the latest woody upgrade, a window (console-based :)) shows up saying > that /etc/X11/Xserver is no longer use

Re: user not authorized to run X, strange variant

2000-12-12 Thread sena
On 12/12/2000 at 09:33 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: > and how come Xwrapper.config is not found by dpg -S Xwrapper.config? > Is there any documentation for it? > On the latest woody upgrade, a window (console-based :)) shows up saying that /etc/X11/Xserver is no longer used. That /etc/X11/Xwrapper.

Re: user not authorized to run X, strange variant

2000-12-12 Thread Erik Steffl
sena wrote: > > On 12/12/2000 at 02:34 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: > > > > > however, /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config is: > > > > allowed_users=console > > nice_value=-10 > > > > and indeed, user on console (non-root) can start X server, but xdm > > cannot (probably because it's daemon, not a user logge

Re: user not authorized to run X, strange variant

2000-12-12 Thread sena
On 12/12/2000 at 02:34 -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: > > however, /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config is: > > allowed_users=console > nice_value=-10 > > and indeed, user on console (non-root) can start X server, but xdm > cannot (probably because it's daemon, not a user logged in on the > console). > I r