Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
on Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 02:30:26AM +0200, Wesley J. Landaker wrote about Re: And now for something completely different... etch!:
> I don't often customize runlevels very much, but usually the first thing
> do when I install a Debian system is remove all the xdm's from 2 and 3
> add them to 5. I switch between those all the time on systems that are
The first thing I do after installing xdm is often (not on single
workstations) disabling the startup of the X server because the machine
running xdm is a central application server i.e. client workstations start X
with -query / ... to get a login on the application server.
I don't want an X server running on the application server so I change xdm's
default configuration. I want to start an X server on the client, so I
create a startup script to start the X server in a non conventional way.
Currently, the runlevel indicates which things are started and these things
can be anything. I consider it a nice and flexible abstraction.
The proposal however, indicates that a runlevel would be dedicated to X. In
my setup, this would mean that my application server would have to run in
this dedicated X runlevel because xdm happens to be started there. However,
this machine doesn't run X at all ... It doesn't seem to feel right i.e. the
abstraction is polluted with implementation issues.
> mostly lights servers but sometimes need to become desktops on the fly
> an extra warm body shows up.
> Wesley J. Landaker <email@example.com>
> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
-- Henry Spencer