Thanks for answer Mr. Lennart, I thought GDM is always active due to
systemd, because in Wikipedia it is written in GNOME article that:
"Since GNOME 3.2 multiseat support has been only available on systems
using systemd."
so I thought it is related to systemd, I don't want disable graphical
login
Hi all:
hope you guys are doing great!. So i have a few questions, hope this is the
best place for them.
I've been doing a lot of work with `sd-bus.h` (basically i've been trying
to bind it to other languages to then interact with systemd natively).
I've been reading the man pages/blog post/gene
There was an extra coma in the grub, which I removed now I'm getting an
output, but still the same, all the output in one shot until : [
1.773708] hid-generic 0003:03F0:0024.0002: input,hidraw1: USB HID v1.10
Keyboard [CHICONY HP Basic USB Keyboard] on usb-:00:14.0-4/input0
Then it goes slowly
On Mo, 13.11.17 17:21, Farhad Mohammadi Majd ([email protected]) wrote:
> Hello, I have a old PC with Debian 9 and GNOME 3.22 installed on, I
> don't need to multiseat feature, so I want to disable this feature to
> reduce RAM and CPU usage, because GNOME Display Manager (GDM) is always
> a
Hello, I have a old PC with Debian 9 and GNOME 3.22 installed on, I
don't need to multiseat feature, so I want to disable this feature to
reduce RAM and CPU usage, because GNOME Display Manager (GDM) is always
active. How to do that?
THANKS
___
systemd-d
Hello,
I rebuilt my machine just to make sure it's all clean, now the machine boot
ok with console=ttyS1 on the kernel. But now I've got no output nor login
prompt.
Dmesg | grep tyy
[0.00] console [tty0] enabled
[0.464947] 00:01: ttyS0 at I/O 0x3f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A
[0.485527]
On So, 12.11.17 18:14, Stefan Schweter ([email protected]) wrote:
> Hi systemd-users,
>
> I tried to add a memory limit for a user service unit (inspired by [1]),
> it looks like:
>
> [Service]
> #
> MemoryAccounting=true
> MemoryLimit=1G
>
> Now the problem is that the (user) service con
On So, 12.11.17 20:17, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog ([email protected]) wrote:
> > And then there's also the big issue: the cgroup code is complex enough
> > given that we need to support three different setups. I'd really
> > prefer if we'd not add even more to that. In fact, I am really looking
> > fo
