Re: X

[cr <cr@orcon.net.nz>]

On Tuesday 25 March 2003 07:35, Pigeon wrote:

(random snips for bandwidth)

>
> > Debian assumes you wouldn't have installed X if you didn't want it
> > starting automatically.
>
> Why? It's reasonable for Windoze to be installed with "BootGUI=1"
> because you can do naff-all in DOS mode. But with Linux you can do
> MORE from the command line than the GUI tools. The assumption is not
> justified. The GUI becomes something you can use when you need it (web
> browsing, gimp, etc) rather than something you have to use all the time.

I absolutely agree there.    Even in Windoze (at work) I do a lot of file 
management in Win95DOS, pathetic as it is, because I dislike 'Explorer' so 
much.    Far more so for Linux.   I like the command line, I especially like 
that no matter what X does, Linux itself never crashes.

> For me, one of the great attractions of Linux is the power of the
> command line. When I first installed debian (slink) I didn't bother
> installing X for quite a while, until I needed it for something
> that produced graphical output. The next time I rebooted and got a
> completely unexpected graphical login, I was both shocked and furious.
>
> This question is asked pretty often on this list, so it seems
> reasonable to assume that plenty of people do not want to boot
> straight into X.

Yup.   Me too.   I *want* X, but only *when* I want it.    I've always had 
Linux (RedHat as it happens, but it could probably be any other variant) set 
to start X manually, and I'm not expecting X to try and start up unless I 
tell it to (or select an option to autostart when installing).  

As it is, on my first login, X tried to start and crashed out due to a 
setting with my graphics card (which always seems to happen with any new 
install of X).   

> > And that you'd know how to disable it from
> > doing so via update-rc.d.
>
> How is someone who has just installed it for the first time supposed
> to know this? Plenty of people don't. We know they don't, because
> they keep asking the list.
>
> > For more:
> >
> >     http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/xdm-disable.html
> >
> > > > A friend of mine recently installed debian and whenever he rebooted
> > > > it started x and then hung his machine.  He doesn't have enough
> > > > experience to know how to circumvent this and therefore had to do a
> > > > complete reinstall.
>
> Which is what would have happened to a friend of mine recently if I
> hadn't done the installation for him and known to take out xdm.

OK.   Take out xdm during the install?    I didn't know to do that, either.

> > Silly boy.  Debian doesn't require reinstalls.  Hell, a friend trashed
> > his /var partition and recovered (well, rebuilt) without a reinstall.
> > Not recommended.  But possible.
>
> The two abovementioned friends, being totally new, did not know this...
>
> > > > I would think that especially debian would adopt a policy of having
> > > > automatic boot to X disabled by default. Every other distro will at
> > > > least ask you.
>
> I agree. It *should* ask. Why doesn't it?
>
> > It is.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> > Debian doesn't install X by default.  Ergo:  X doesn't start by default.
>
> That's not "disabled". That's "not installed". Course it doesn't
> flippin' start if it's not installed!
>
> And when it is installed, automatic boot to X is *enabled* by default.
>
> > X is only installed if you request it.  And as with other services, when
> > installed, SysV init is updated so that the service is automatically
> > started.
>
> ... so that *xdm* is automatically started. Which you don't actually
> need on the machine at all. But the new user doesn't know this. Even
> if they notice that xdm has been installed along with X, they'll just
> assume that it's been installed because you do need it. 

*Exactly* what I did.....

> Which you
> don't, unless you've asked for a graphical login. Which is a choice
> you don't get offered.
>
> Technically, xdm is only installed if you request it. Practically, the
> new user struggles and swears with dselect 

Yes!!!    Dselect is not the world's most intuitive piece of software.  :) 
I do *not* wish to start a platform war but Red Hat's installation selection 
is one of its best features, not because of its fancy graphical interface but 
because selection / deselection is intuitive.   I'm sure dselect could be 
made much easier with a bit of careful tweaking.  

> and doesn't notice that xdm
> has been selected, or the significance of it. Nor do they realise that
> they don't need it, especially given dselect's obstinacy over
> suggests/recommends. Or they just use tasksel, and know even less
> about what's going on. Hit the Button That Makes It Work, reboot, X
> can't handle the motherboard's onboard video adapter, machine is
> useless.

With any luck it will drop back to the command line, I think.  

Knowing what the installation (i.e. Linux) should look like is a huge 
advantage when trying a new install.   I don't wish to wave the flag for Red 
Hat (after all, I'm seriously trying to change to Debian!) but I'm very 
relieved that my first ever Linux install was Red Hat, because I do think 
Debian might have baffled me completely and I'd be running W95 now.

I do hope my comments will be taken as helpful feedback, I appreciate the 
work people put into programming these things.   I will say the install on 
the whole went quite smoothly (except for a lot of fiddling with dselect 
trying to make it work), the problems all arose when I started trying to run 
it - xf86config-4  needed much tweaking to recognise my graphics card (an 
ordinary S3 Trio) and the automatic boot-into-X just complicated matters.

cr