[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#539186: nolisten switch in /etc/X11/xinit/xserverrc ignored



On 14 Oct 2009, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:09:18 +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> 
> > After some research on google I used this command to find which process
> > was using port 6000:
> > 
> > Starting Nmap 5.00 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2009-10-14 07:43 BST
> > Interesting ports on localhost (127.0.0.1):
> > Not shown: 992 closed ports
> > PORT     STATE SERVICE
> > 22/tcp   open  ssh
> > 25/tcp   open  smtp
> > 111/tcp  open  rpcbind
> > 113/tcp  open  auth
> > 143/tcp  open  imap
> > 515/tcp  open  printer
> > 993/tcp  open  imaps
> > 6000/tcp open  X11
> > 
> > I therefore realised it was X11 that was listening on this port. I found
> > two ways of getting round this: either do ssh before starting X, or
> > start X with the --nolisten switch.
> > 
> > The above switch is there in /etc/X11/xinit/xserverrc but it does not
> > seem to have any effect.
> > 
> How is X started?  What's /proc/`pidof X`/cmdline?
> 
> Cheers,
> Julien

Sorry, I don't understand  /proc/`pidof X`/cmdline. I don't have this.

X is started with startx and the following files

.xinitrc:

xset -DPMS
xset -b
xset s off
setxkbmap -option terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp
# /usr/bin/xmodmap /home/ac/.Xmodmap
/usr/bin/xmodmap -e "clear Lock"
#/usr/bin/xmodmap -e "keycode 113 = Alt_L"
/usr/bin/xmodmap -e "keycode 108 = Alt_L"
/usr/bin/xmodmap -e "keycode 66 = Insert"
 xset +fp ~/fonts
 xsetroot -cursor_name cursor2.pcf
exec icewm-session-experimental
# exec twm

.Xdefaults:

#xterm*font: *-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-120-*
xterm*font: -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--20-200-75-75-c-100-iso10646-1

xterm*background: ivory3
xterm*foreground: black
xterm*loginshell: true
xterm*geometry: 80x25
xterm*cursorColor: red
xterm*scrollBar: true
xterm*visualBell: true

Regards,

AC


-- 
Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk 
Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, 
and sceptical articles)




Reply to: