shmuel siegel wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the code did that deliberately? Maybe someone thought that it would be a good idea for usable consoles numbers to start at 1? Or someone thought that once people started down a certain path with conventions, it shouldn't be changed unless the people saw a real benefit. I don't think that it is a broken assumption that I should know where my usable consoles are. Forcing the user to guess where the console is is a broken interface. Maybe this cartoon will make the point http://www.lesher.ws/queryinterface.html.On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:44 AM, shmuel siegel <fedora shmuelhome mine nu> wrote:Dan Nicholson wrote:Because you are changing a user interface. What is going to happen when the user switches to tty1 and nothing happens? The basic logic of putting X on tty7 is to get it out of the way. Humans will use the lowest numbered ttys first. Besides breaking existing documentation, including advice on variousWhy is it significant what tty any program runs on? Isn't the assumption that getty will be on tty1 just as faulty as the assumption X will be on tty7? -- Danforums, is not a good idea.The basic logic of X starting on tty7 is because it was the first open VT because getty is already running on tty1-6. I can show you the code in the X server where it picks the first available VT. This is just changing it so that X will start on tty1. What interface is that breaking? A broken assumption that tty1 == !X? -- Dan
Just stop for a second.Roll back from the keyboard a bit. Take a deep breath. Clear your mind of what you were doing. Relax. Listen to the gentle whirr of your computer, and close your eyes.
Feeling relaxed? Ok, now open your eyes, and ask yourself the following question:
"Do I /really/ care?"Look at the F keys on your keyboard. The whole of your gripe lies within the space of 6 inches. Lets not have a flame war today. Lets just move our habits 6 inches to the left and let life be good.