On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:39:06 +0100 Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> 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 conditions in the way VTs are allocated; Not if they're allocated statically. > * text consoles are statically allocated, which means there are > too many for some users and not enough for some others; That's easily configurable. > * the display manager should run on the first VT. You keep suggesting this, but I don't agree. > > > > * New GDM upstream, as is, is completely broken. > > That seems to be the only reason. But this is clearly a bug in GDM, > > that should be fixed there. > > Yes, but there are better ways to fix bugs than mimicking already > existing bugs. > > > If you want X on another tty, change it in /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers. > > If you need more ttys, add gettys to /etc/inittab. This system is > > so simple and flexible, that I don't see how you can improve on it. > > Yeah, sure. Like, you know, dynamic VT allocation and X server. > > > So the solution is to make GDM configurable by a parameter or a > > config file to set the vt it should start on. > > You really don’t know what you are talking about, do you? Well, maybe not, but that's because so far I haven't had nor heard of any problems with the current system and you refuse to explain what the real problem is. But I start to suspect that it might have to do with multiple X servers being started dynamically. If that's the case, and it does make problems, than that might very well be a reason that's more important than tradition (though I would prefer a solution that conserves tradition). > > > > I don’t see this as rocket science software, and it means: > > > * No useless getty processes are started. > > I never considered this to be a real problem. > > I always consider it a problem when there are unneeded processes on > the system. I consider a tty-management-daemon an unneeded process > > > * tty1 is always the first VT you log on, regardless of your > > > setup. > > I don't see this as an improvement. I always want X on the same > > tty, no matter in which order I do things. Or did I misunderstand > > something here? > > X is not always on the same tty. It is only if you use an antiquity > like xdm. Even with startx, tty allocation is dynamic. Thanks to that antiquity, I will be able also in the future to have X on vt7. And I don't have to run gconf (speaking of unneeded processes). > > > * You can start an arbitrary number of text or graphical > > > consoles, without any configuration. > > Is this really a requirement? Where are the wishlist bugs of users > > demanding this? And anyway, a simple script that looks for the next > > free tty and spawns getty there solves this nice and easy. > > No it does not. Especially since “looking for the next free tty” is > not a safe operation. Fair enough. It's just that I never felt the urge to allocate vts dynamically. Cheers, harry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature