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

Re: XDMCP Core 3



tor, 20.01.2005 kl. 19.32 skrev Jonathan Andrews:
> On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 17:27, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
> > tor, 20.01.2005 kl. 12.20 skrev Jonathan Andrews:
> > > On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 08:14, Mark McLoughlin wrote: 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 22:43 +0000, Jonathan Andrews wrote:
> > > > > Is XDMCP, remote X bust in core 3 ?
> > > > 
> > > > 	I was using it not so long ago and it was working fine.
> > > > 
> > > > > I've tried the gui configuration for tool gdm. The machine has no
> > > > > firewall enabled - all I get the "gdm_child_action: Aborting display
> > > > > jonspc:1" in the log ?
> > > > 
> > > > 	I'm suprised that's the only message you get - a glance at the code
> > > > suggests if you're getting this error message (which is from the master)
> > > > you should be getting another message from the slave.
> > > If found my problem, its a name resolver issue (thank you Mr Cox :-D )
> > > I think email is on a go-slow, please look back if you have time.
> > > 
> > > Some comments on this and a few other things
> > > 
> > > 1) gdm doesn't have a process itself, it runs from init - but when gdm
> > > is started it seems to undergo a name change to "gdm-binary" without
> > > being owned by gdm or anything called gdm. As a result its not possible
> > > to cleanly restart gdm ? ie no "/etc/init.d/gdm restart". Am I missing
> > > something here or this a bit naff ? 
> > > 
> > 
> > it is. But you have the tools gdm-restart etc. (just type gdm*tabtab*
> > and you'l find 'em
> 
> Thanks, i've found it - yet another small shell script.  In a way you
> are making my point nicely.  Gnome broke the way xdm works when they
> ported it into gnome, then they keep bodging on another shell script for
> the functionality thats missing. I know in the global scheme of things
> its a minor point, but breaking the sensible way process control works
> just to add a few lines of logic before and after the process seems to
> be a bit ... well ... you get the idea !
> 
> I have to admit gdm is pretty though (after xdm anything looks better)
> :-)  - but to many bodges ... 
> 

Agreed. Which rc.d(or is it init.d? what is the difference? and what is
the diff between "tellinit 3" and "init 3" as i like to do it?) script
starts GDM, anyway? why not have a separate script in there, controlling
gdm?

The /etc/init.d/servicename {start|stop|restart|status} is pretty
standard. Standards means consistency, consistency means
user-friendlyness (no matter how andvanced an user you are).

> *** warning - nasty idea for Unix purists ***
> Linux is general seems a bit confused about process control, init,
> xinetd and rc all overlap slightly in functionality. Couldn't the entire
> machine come up with just a slightly better xinetd and config files ? 
> xinetd treats socket connects as an event - but isn't starting, stopping
> or changing runlevel just another event ? 
> 
> Jon
> 
> 


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