Felix Miata [2015-12-02 01:52:18-05] wrote:
> /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/00-keyboard.conf always works for me:
>
> Section "InputClass"
> Identifier "system-keyboard"
> Option "XkbOptions" "terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp"
> EndSection
I think /etc/default/keyboard is a
Martin Str|mberg composed on 2015-12-02 07:39 (UTC+0100):
> Chris Bannister wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:54:34PM +, Brian wrote:
>> > There are still users (an example is in
>> > this thread) who believe ctrl-alt-backspace no longer works in Debian.
>> > It does.
>> So it does! Wond
In article Chris Bannister
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:54:34PM +, Brian wrote:
> > There are still users (an example is in
> > this thread) who believe ctrl-alt-backspace no longer works in Debian.
> > It does.
> So it does! Wonder why it didn't work for me on another machine. :(
I
Lisi Reisz wrote:
> That is a real question. $USER doesn't appear to need root rights to
> access a different VT.
I wrote:
> Input to an un-logged-in active VT is collected by a copy of getty
> running as root.
Neal writes:
> If there's a getty running on it.
Thus "active" VT.
> If you have re
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:01:07 -0600
John Hasler wrote:
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > That is a real question. $USER doesn't appear to need root rights to
> > access a different VT.
>
> Input to an un-logged-in active VT is collected by a copy of getty
> running as root.
If there's a getty running on
Lisi Reisz wrote:
> That is a real question. $USER doesn't appear to need root rights to
> access a different VT.
Input to an un-logged-in active VT is collected by a copy of getty
running as root.
man getty
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On 2015-11-28, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2015 10:18:16 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> X needs root rights to access a different VT
>
> Why?
>
> That is a real question. $USER doesn't appear to need root rights to
> access a different VT.
You, sitting at the keyboard, are not a pro
On Sat 28 Nov 2015 at 17:07:13 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 29 Nov 2015 at 04:27:59 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:18:16AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2015-11-28 21:16:20 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:10:01PM +, Bri
On Sun 29 Nov 2015 at 04:27:59 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:18:16AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2015-11-28 21:16:20 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:10:01PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Fri 27 Nov 2015 at 18:29:20 +1300, Chris
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:18:16AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-11-28 21:16:20 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:10:01PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > On Fri 27 Nov 2015 at 18:29:20 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:40:00PM +00
On Saturday 28 November 2015 13:06:09 Brian wrote:
> As Vincent Lefevre said, root privileges are needed to access a vt other
> than the one startx is used on.
There's a hole in my bucket, dear Eliza...
Lisi
On Sat 28 Nov 2015 at 12:27:01 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2015 10:48:00 Nicolas George wrote:
> > L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit :
> > > I can access a plethora of VTs without changing to root.
> >
> > You, as far as I know, are a human being, not a Linu
On Saturday 28 November 2015 10:48:00 Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit :
> > I can access a plethora of VTs without changing to root.
>
> You, as far as I know, are a human being, not a Linux process. You do not
> access VTs, you access computer keyboards t
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit :
> I can access a plethora of VTs without changing to root.
You, as far as I know, are a human being, not a Linux process. You do not
access VTs, you access computer keyboards that allow you to control VTs
through the courtesy of the getty progr
On Saturday 28 November 2015 10:41:39 Nicolas George wrote:
> L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit :
> > $USER doesn't appear to need root rights to access a different VT.
>
> Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
>
> Regards,
I can access a plethora of VTs without changin
L'octidi 8 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit :
> $USER doesn't appear to need root rights to access a different VT.
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Saturday 28 November 2015 10:18:16 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> X needs root rights to access a different VT
Why?
That is a real question. $USER doesn't appear to need root rights to access a
different VT.
Lisi
On 2015-11-28 21:16:20 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:10:01PM +, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 27 Nov 2015 at 18:29:20 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:40:00PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > > "startx -- vt7" won't work (tested). X only runs o
The Wanderer composed on 2015-11-27 15:01 (UTC-0500):
> Brian wrote:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743015
>> where, with or without an alias, 'start -- vt7' would be the standard
>> and traditional way, as it is on Jessie, to have X on vt7.
On a freshly upgraded Stretch
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:10:01PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 27 Nov 2015 at 18:29:20 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:40:00PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > On Wed 25 Nov 2015 at 15:48:48 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > >
> > > > But then, if the user does "startx --
On 2015-11-27 at 13:14, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 27 Nov 2015 at 09:09:37 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-22 at 19:45, Brian wrote:
>>> It's the first time I've heard using a bash alias described as a
>>> "kludge".
>>
>> It's the difference between "configuring foo to do bar" and "tellin
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 08:22:20 +, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2015, John L. Ries wrote:
> > Actually, if someone is starting X via startx instead of a display manager,
> > it normally means either that the user is trying to test his X
> > configuration, or that X is only intended to run
On Fri 27 Nov 2015 at 09:09:37 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-11-22 at 19:45, Brian wrote:
>
> > On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 19:00:36 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-22 at 18:52, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> >>> In .bashrc (if using bash)
> >>>
> >>> alias startx="startx -- vt7"
>
On 2015-11-27 09:09:37 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-11-22 at 19:45, Brian wrote:
> > Quoting:
> >
> > There are 2 reasons for this change:
> >
> > 1) It is needed to make Xorg run without root rights
>
> Which has never been necessary before...
>
> I can see why it would be desirabl
(Phew. Sorry for the delay in replying.)
On 2015-11-22 at 19:45, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 19:00:36 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-22 at 18:52, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>> In .bashrc (if using bash)
>>>
>>> alias startx="startx -- vt7"
>>
>> While that would technically
On Fri 27 Nov 2015 at 10:49:09 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-11-27 18:36:39 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > but by changing '/etc/systemd/logind.conf' to
> > NAutoVTs=7
> >
> > then on login 'alt-F7' will change to tty7 and issue startx from there.
>
> which doesn't solve the problem
On Fri 27 Nov 2015 at 18:29:20 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:40:00PM +, Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 25 Nov 2015 at 15:48:48 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >
> > > But then, if the user does "startx -- vt7", he would still be affected
> > > by the session manager issu
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 04:57:17PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> There s/b a GOOD reason to change something so basic and well
> established, and I have not seen that reason adequately explained yet.
> Did I miss the memo?
You either haven't read the whole thread or just don't agree with the
rea
On 2015-11-27 18:36:39 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> but by changing '/etc/systemd/logind.conf' to
> NAutoVTs=7
>
> then on login 'alt-F7' will change to tty7 and issue startx from there.
which doesn't solve the problem at all since the goal is to type
startx from some tty and have X run on *an
People in this thread might find interesting:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801487
Regards
Mauro
Il 27/11/2015 09:39, Petter Adsen ha scritto:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:08:51 +1300
Chris Bannister wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:54:34PM +, Brian wrote:
For many reade
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:08:51 +1300
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:54:34PM +, Brian wrote:
> > For many readers (diligent or otherwise), isn't this a matter of
> > updated documentation and re-education. There are still users (an
> > example is in this thread) who believe
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 03:05:26PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Renaud writes:
> > One wonders why did they abandon the principle of backward compatibility ?
>
> Brian writes:
> > How does that relate to the principle of constant inovation and
> > improvement?
>
> By way of continuity. Sometimes
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 06:40:00PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 25 Nov 2015 at 15:48:48 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > On 2015-11-25 12:58:15 +, Brian wrote:
> > > This is where I think the confusion lies. Quoting
> > >
> > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/23004/
> > >
> > >
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:21:55AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:22:20AM +, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> > On 23 Nov 2015, John L. Ries wrote:
> > > Actually, if someone is starting X via startx instead of a display
> > > manager,
> > > it normally means either that t
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:54:34PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 26 Nov 2015 at 11:04:23 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
> > Marc writes:
> > > Not alone, at all. I run Mate, but I boot to a console, log in there,
> > > and use startx to get my X session.
> >
> > So do I, and I have a decades-old mus
On Thursday 26 November 2015 15:37:04 Brian wrote:
> On Thu 26 Nov 2015 at 17:28:05 -0300, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:46:54 -0600
> >
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > > > Only obsolete for those who have switched to systemd-Linux; the
> > > > documentation remains still valid for
Renaud writes:
> One wonders why did they abandon the principle of backward compatibility ?
Brian writes:
> How does that relate to the principle of constant inovation and
> improvement?
By way of continuity. Sometimes it is necessary to break continuity,
but it should not be done without carefu
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:37:04 +
Brian wrote:
> > One wonders why did they abandon the principle of backward compatibility ?
>
> How does that relate to the principle of constant inovation and
> improvement?
Is it that difficult to innovate and improve, without destroying what was
before ?
On Thu 26 Nov 2015 at 17:28:05 -0300, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:46:54 -0600
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> > > Only obsolete for those who have switched to systemd-Linux; the
> > > documentation remains still valid for users of GNU-Linux.
>
> > True, and that only makes the pr
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:46:54 -0600
John Hasler wrote:
> > Only obsolete for those who have switched to systemd-Linux; the
> > documentation remains still valid for users of GNU-Linux.
> True, and that only makes the problem worse. Now you have *two* sets of
> confused new users.
One wonders
Renaud writes:
> Only obsolete for those who have switched to systemd-Linux; the
> documentation remains still valid for users of GNU-Linux.
True, and that only makes the problem worse. Now you have *two* sets of
confused new users.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Thu 26 Nov 2015 at 16:28:05 -0300, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:16:16 -0600
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> > > For many readers (diligent or otherwise), isn't this a matter of
> > > updated documentation and re-education.
>
> > There is no getting rid of the old documentation
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:16:16 -0600
John Hasler wrote:
> > For many readers (diligent or otherwise), isn't this a matter of
> > updated documentation and re-education.
> There is no getting rid of the old documentation and no way to mark it
> obsolete. This is a significant cost of human inte
I wrote:
> So do I, and I have a decades-old muscle memory that tells me
> CNTRL-ALT-F1 will get me a logged-in console. Having to reprogram that
> is a (minor) nuisance. It will be a much larger nuisance for the new
> users who will diligently read up on Linux before trying it (yes, there
> are p
On Thu 26 Nov 2015 at 11:04:23 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Marc writes:
> > Not alone, at all. I run Mate, but I boot to a console, log in there,
> > and use startx to get my X session.
>
> So do I, and I have a decades-old muscle memory that tells me
> CNTRL-ALT-F1 will get me a logged-in conso
Marc writes:
> Not alone, at all. I run Mate, but I boot to a console, log in there,
> and use startx to get my X session.
So do I, and I have a decades-old muscle memory that tells me
CNTRL-ALT-F1 will get me a logged-in console. Having to reprogram that
is a (minor) nuisance. It will be a much
On 11/25/2015 12:22 AM, Anthony Campbell wrote:
On 23 Nov 2015, John L. Ries wrote:
Actually, if someone is starting X via startx instead of a display manager,
it normally means either that the user is trying to test his X
configuration, or that X is only intended to run intermittently, with TTY
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:22:20AM +, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2015, John L. Ries wrote:
> > Actually, if someone is starting X via startx instead of a display manager,
> > it normally means either that the user is trying to test his X
> > configuration, or that X is only intended to
On Wed 25 Nov 2015 at 15:48:48 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-11-25 12:58:15 +, Brian wrote:
> > This is where I think the confusion lies. Quoting
> >
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/23004/
> >
> > again.
> >
> > There are 2 reasons for this change:
> >
> > 1) It
On 2015-11-25 12:58:15 +, Brian wrote:
> This is where I think the confusion lies. Quoting
>
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/23004/
>
> again.
>
> There are 2 reasons for this change:
>
> 1) It is needed to make Xorg run without root rights
> 2) The old behavior creates a
Would everyone tolerate some top posting so the stall can be set up? :)
There are two issues here which I think are getting confused. The first
concerns the issue raised by the OP: using startx on vt1 gets vt1
replaced by Xorg. Background to this change in historical behaviour is
discussed in bug
On Wednesday 25 November 2015 08:22:20 Anthony Campbell wrote:
> I don't agree with this. I don't use a desktop manager but even if I
> did, I'd prefer to start X via startx. This gives me more control. If
> something goes wrong with X you are screwed if you don't have an easily
> accessible TTY to
On 23 Nov 2015, John L. Ries wrote:
> Actually, if someone is starting X via startx instead of a display manager,
> it normally means either that the user is trying to test his X
> configuration, or that X is only intended to run intermittently, with TTY
> mode being the norm. So having X replace
On 2015-11-25 09:32:50 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I agree, but there's still a contradiction with the above: what Chris
> said (quote from developers) is that X no longer uses a different TTY
I meant Brian, not Chris (quoting got wrong a few messages above).
--
Vincent Lefèvre - Web:
On 2015-11-24 22:15:25 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Brian:
> > On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 21:13:29 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >
> >> Am 24.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Brian:
> >>> On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 17:36:49 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >>>
> On 2015-11-23 00:
On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 22:15:25 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Brian:
> > On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 21:13:29 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >
> >> Am 24.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Brian:
> >>> On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 17:36:49 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >>>
> On 2015-
Am 24.11.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Brian:
> On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 21:13:29 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> Am 24.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Brian:
>>> On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 17:36:49 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>>
On 2015-11-23 00:45:57 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 19:00:36 -0
On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 21:13:29 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Brian:
> > On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 17:36:49 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-23 00:45:57 +, Brian wrote:
> >>> On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 19:00:36 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >>>
> On 2
Am 24.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Brian:
> On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 17:36:49 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-23 00:45:57 +, Brian wrote:
>>> On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 19:00:36 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>>>
On 2015-11-22 at 18:52, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>> There are 2 reasons
On Tue 24 Nov 2015 at 17:36:49 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-11-23 00:45:57 +, Brian wrote:
> > On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 19:00:36 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > > On 2015-11-22 at 18:52, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:56:04PM -0500, The Wanderer wr
On 2015-11-23 00:45:57 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 19:00:36 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> > On 2015-11-22 at 18:52, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:56:04PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > >
> > >>> startx -- vt7
> > >>
> > >> That requires specifying
On 11/24/2015 06:17 AM, Brian wrote:
On Mon 23 Nov 2015 at 20:06:06 -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
My box always has three X sessions going at the same time (still on Wheezy).
I use an alias to set the vt. The value of the alias is determined by who
is logged on and running startx:
for me:
al
On Mon 23 Nov 2015 at 20:06:06 -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> On 11/22/2015 02:56 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> >On 2015-11-22 at 15:24, Brian wrote:
> >
> >>startx -- vt7
> >
> >That requires specifying it by hand every time startx is run. As I
> >indicated, that is unacceptable; I don't have to specif
On 11/22/2015 02:56 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 2015-11-22 at 15:24, Brian wrote:
On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 14:12:09 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 2015-11-22 at 13:26, Brian wrote:
* 10-startx-Under-Linux-start-X-on-the-current-VT.patch,
11-startx-Pass-vtX-as-long-as-the-user-did-not-spec
Then there all the new users out there who, having diligently read up on
Linux, know exactly how to open a console...
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Actually, if someone is starting X via startx instead of a display
manager, it normally means either that the user is trying to test his X
configuration, or that X is only intended to run intermittently, with TTY
mode being the norm. So having X replace the terminal in that
circumstance does n
On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 19:00:36 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-11-22 at 18:52, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:56:04PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> >>> startx -- vt7
> >>
> >> That requires specifying it by hand every time startx is run. As I
> >> indicated, th
On 2015-11-22 at 18:52, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:56:04PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>>> startx -- vt7
>>
>> That requires specifying it by hand every time startx is run. As I
>> indicated, that is unacceptable; I don't have to specify the VT
>> manually every time I
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 05:56:04PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > startx -- vt7
>
> That requires specifying it by hand every time startx is run. As I
> indicated, that is unacceptable; I don't have to specify the VT manually
> every time I lanch X now in order to get the current behavior, and I
>
On 2015-11-22 at 15:24, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 14:12:09 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-22 at 13:26, Brian wrote:
>>> * 10-startx-Under-Linux-start-X-on-the-current-VT.patch,
>>> 11-startx-Pass-vtX-as-long-as-the-user-did-not-specify-.patch: By
>>> default
>>>
On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 14:03:35 (+0100), berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Le 22.11.2015 10:51, Bert Riding a écrit :
> >On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:40:01 +0100, berenger.morel wrote:
> >>There is a behavior change I noticed when I switched to Jessie,
> >>which
> >>have always annoyed me but that I
On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 14:12:09 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-11-22 at 13:26, Brian wrote:
>
> > On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 08:16:50 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> >
> >> Felix writes:
> >>> IIRC this change has to do with systemd
> >>
> >> It happens even when not using Systemd.
> >
> > Possibl
On 2015-11-22 at 13:26, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 08:16:50 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> Felix writes:
>>> IIRC this change has to do with systemd
>>
>> It happens even when not using Systemd.
>
> Possibly something to do accomodating systemd-shim.
>
>> From the xinit changelog;
>
On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 14:03:35 +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> I see.
>
> But this trick won't prevent the me to be able to see what X11 print on
> screen, right? This is the reason I do not like this behavior.
Some people have described this behaviour as a security risk. The list
On Sun 22 Nov 2015 at 08:16:50 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Felix writes:
> > IIRC this change has to do with systemd
>
> It happens even when not using Systemd.
Possibly something to do accomodating systemd-shim.
>From the xinit changelog;
* 10-startx-Under-Linux-start-X-on-the-current-VT.pa
Felix writes:
> IIRC this change has to do with systemd
It happens even when not using Systemd.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org composed on 2015-11-22 00:09 (UTC+0100):
> There is a behavior change I noticed when I switched to Jessie, which
> have always annoyed me but that I never tried to resolve.
> The change is that now, when I use startx on TTY1, Xorg replaces the
> TTY. I understand t
Le 22.11.2015 10:51, Bert Riding a écrit :
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:40:01 +0100, berenger.morel wrote:
Hello.
There is a behavior change I noticed when I switched to Jessie,
which
have always annoyed me but that I never tried to resolve.
The change is that now, when I use startx on TTY1, Xo
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:40:01 +0100, berenger.morel wrote:
> Hello.
>
> There is a behavior change I noticed when I switched to Jessie, which
> have always annoyed me but that I never tried to resolve.
>
> The change is that now, when I use startx on TTY1, Xorg replaces the
> TTY. I understand th
Hello.
There is a behavior change I noticed when I switched to Jessie, which
have always annoyed me but that I never tried to resolve.
The change is that now, when I use startx on TTY1, Xorg replaces the
TTY. I understand that it is not a problem for 99% of users, but I would
like to know ho
80 matches
Mail list logo