disabling gdm - stability warning? - Debian

This is a discussion on disabling gdm - stability warning? - Debian ; "Mark Madsen" wrote > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:08:54 +0100, Magnate wrote: >> "Mark Madsen" wrote >>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:39:46 +0100, Magnate wrote: >>> >>>> But why is gdm set to start in runlevel 2?? I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: disabling gdm - stability warning?

  1. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    "Mark Madsen" wrote
    > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:08:54 +0100, Magnate wrote:
    >> "Mark Madsen" wrote
    >>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:39:46 +0100, Magnate wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> But why is gdm set to start in runlevel 2?? I thought the whole point
    >>>> of runlevels 2-5 was that you could choose whether to start different
    >>>> things in them. RL1 is single-user, RL2 is multi-user console mode
    >>>> (what the OP seems to want), RL5 is full X login via ?dm etc. (I never
    >>>> did have a use for RLs 3 and 4.)
    >>>
    >>> If this is a Debian system, it has a different set of runlevels than
    >>> the distros described here.
    >>>
    >>> I'm reading this in alt.os.linux.debian BTW.

    >>
    >> Me too. Can you point me to the Debian doc(s) on runlevels pls? I knew
    >> Debian treated them differently - what I want to understand is why. I
    >> see loss with no gain at the moment.

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runlevel plus onward links.
    >
    > It's not that Debian specifically doesn't treat them differently, it's
    > just that there is a lot of freedom to choose what runlevels are used for.
    >
    > Also (and this is not a personal attack) the Debian project has been
    > providing quality systems for a decade and a half. They've done enough
    > to earn respect that people should find out why they made the choices as
    > they did before applying criticism.


    That's precisely what I'm trying to do. I have a tremendous amount of
    respect for everything about Debian except its documentation. I have used
    Debian exclusively since about 2001, after five years of Slackware and
    RedHat. I *like* Debian, a lot - I've even embarked upon the long process of
    becoming a package maintainer. I just get very frustrated when I cannot find
    out things I don't know or understand. This thread is a good example. You
    kindly provided a link to Wikipedia, which has an onward link to the Debian
    FAQ, but neither tells me what I really need to know: what is the rationale
    for Debian including [xgk]dm in every runlevel from 2-5? What is the reason
    for not allowing a multi-user runlevel without starting X automatically?
    This seems to inconvenience the OP and everyone who wants that
    functionality, while providing no obvious benefit. I respect Debian enough
    to believe that there is a good explanation, I just want to find out what it
    is.

    > IMHE, I've run several Debian systems with or without display managers
    > and never once felt the absence of a runlevel....


    Me neither - but the OP's requirements feel it, and I can't see the OP being
    unique in those requirements.

    CC


  2. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    On 09/19/2008 07:00 AM, Magnate wrote:
    > [...] what I really need
    > to know: what is the rationale for Debian including [xgk]dm in every
    > runlevel from 2-5? What is the reason for not allowing a multi-user
    > runlevel without starting X automatically? [...]


    I'll provide a quick, non-authoritative answer: simplicity. The default
    runlevels should be simple, and if something more complicated is needed,
    the user can use update-rc.d to change the runlevels as the Debian
    Reference recommends.



  3. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    "Mumia W." wrote
    > On 09/19/2008 07:00 AM, Magnate wrote:
    >> [...] what I really need to know: what is the rationale for Debian
    >> including [xgk]dm in every runlevel from 2-5? What is the reason for not
    >> allowing a multi-user runlevel without starting X automatically? [...]

    >
    > I'll provide a quick, non-authoritative answer: simplicity. The default
    > runlevels should be simple, and if something more complicated is needed,
    > the user can use update-rc.d to change the runlevels as the Debian
    > Reference recommends.


    Ok, thanks for the thought. I don't see anything simple about starting X
    automatically, given the number of things that can go wrong with X. But I
    see the point, even if I don't agree with it.

    CC


  4. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    CC writes:
    > I don't see anything simple about starting X automatically, given the
    > number of things that can go wrong with X.


    Then don't install a display manager (or disable its startup script) and X
    won't start automatically.
    --
    John Hasler

  5. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    Magnate :
    > "Mumia W." wrote
    > > On 09/19/2008 07:00 AM, Magnate wrote:
    > >> [...] what I really need to know: what is the rationale for Debian
    > >> including [xgk]dm in every runlevel from 2-5? What is the reason for not
    > >> allowing a multi-user runlevel without starting X automatically? [...]

    > >
    > > I'll provide a quick, non-authoritative answer: simplicity. The default
    > > runlevels should be simple, and if something more complicated is needed,
    > > the user can use update-rc.d to change the runlevels as the Debian
    > > Reference recommends.

    >
    > Ok, thanks for the thought. I don't see anything simple about starting X
    > automatically, given the number of things that can go wrong with X. But I
    > see the point, even if I don't agree with it.


    It's fire insurance, intended to get the most number of noobs up with
    the least amount of confusion on their part (otherwise followed by
    b*tch*ng to reportbug). The theory is, if you want something
    different, you should know how to do that (and it's not hard).

    I prefer to avoid installing *dm, and go my own way.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  6. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    "s. keeling" wrote
    > Magnate :
    >> "Mumia W." wrote
    >> > On 09/19/2008 07:00 AM, Magnate wrote:
    >> >> [...] what I really need to know: what is the rationale for Debian
    >> >> including [xgk]dm in every runlevel from 2-5? What is the reason for
    >> >> not
    >> >> allowing a multi-user runlevel without starting X automatically? [...]
    >> >
    >> > I'll provide a quick, non-authoritative answer: simplicity. The default
    >> > runlevels should be simple, and if something more complicated is
    >> > needed,
    >> > the user can use update-rc.d to change the runlevels as the Debian
    >> > Reference recommends.

    >>
    >> Ok, thanks for the thought. I don't see anything simple about starting X
    >> automatically, given the number of things that can go wrong with X. But
    >> I
    >> see the point, even if I don't agree with it.

    >
    > It's fire insurance, intended to get the most number of noobs up with
    > the least amount of confusion on their part (otherwise followed by
    > b*tch*ng to reportbug). The theory is, if you want something
    > different, you should know how to do that (and it's not hard).


    Sure, I can see the sense in that - but surely it could also be achieved by
    setting the default runlevel to 5? I guess it makes no real difference.

    > I prefer to avoid installing *dm, and go my own way.


    I tend to install *dm after making sure that X starts up correctly.

    CC


  7. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    > He can use "update-rc.d -f service remove" or he can create the mirror K
    > link. Moving things completely out of the rc directories is not a good
    > idea.
    >
    > by *far* the best way is to just rename the link and change the S for a
    > K.


    Whatever. It works for me. I don't mind a little cruft accumulation.

    --
    In Seattle, Washington, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon that
    is over six feet in length.

  8. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>
    >> He can use "update-rc.d -f service remove" or he can create the mirror K
    >> link. Moving things completely out of the rc directories is not a good
    >> idea.
    >>
    >> by *far* the best way is to just rename the link and change the S for a
    >> K.

    >
    > Whatever. It works for me. I don't mind a little cruft accumulation.


    Well, there are a million ways to do everything, Generally a right way
    which is documented and supported and well understood and then there are
    the hacks and the easy to forget things which are the cause of systems
    being hosed 6 months down the line because you can not remember what you
    did.

    I know which I prefer.

    So no, not "whatever" IMO. Bad ways become common ways. And when they
    become common ways then system stability starts to suffer.

    Witness the run around with NVidia and the NVidia Installer versus
    NVidia-GLX for a good example.

    I know you meant well and possibly your way is the correct way now, but
    its not the way I was told a long while back and seems to be more robust
    in every sense. I would be interested to hear the "official way" and
    change my tendencies accordingly if I am wrong. There are just too many
    different views out there IMO which can clash and upset the underlying
    OS.


  9. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:51:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Linonut writes:
    >>>
    >>> He can use "update-rc.d -f service remove" or he can create the mirror K
    >>> link. Moving things completely out of the rc directories is not a good
    >>> idea.
    >>>
    >>> by *far* the best way is to just rename the link and change the S for a
    >>> K.

    >>
    >> Whatever. It works for me. I don't mind a little cruft accumulation.

    >
    > Well, there are a million ways to do everything, Generally a right way
    > which is documented and supported and well understood and then there are
    > the hacks and the easy to forget things which are the cause of systems
    > being hosed 6 months down the line because you can not remember what you
    > did.
    >
    > I know which I prefer.
    >
    > So no, not "whatever" IMO. Bad ways become common ways. And when they
    > become common ways then system stability starts to suffer.
    >
    > Witness the run around with NVidia and the NVidia Installer versus
    > NVidia-GLX for a good example.
    >
    > I know you meant well and possibly your way is the correct way now, but
    > its not the way I was told a long while back and seems to be more robust
    > in every sense. I would be interested to hear the "official way" and
    > change my tendencies accordingly if I am wrong. There are just too many
    > different views out there IMO which can clash and upset the underlying
    > OS.


    One of the worst things a user can do with Linux, IMHO, is venture outside
    the prescribed methods for doing things as documented by his/her particular
    distribution.

    For example, with Ubuntu, going to Nvidia's site and downloading drivers
    etc rather than using the Ubuntu package manager to do stuff.

    Yes, it can and often does work fine, however a noob will be in deep crap
    when it doesn't
    This is especially true if the noob happens to follow outdated
    instructions.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  10. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Moshe Goldfarb. belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:51:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >>
    >>> Whatever. It works for me. I don't mind a little cruft accumulation.

    >>
    >> Well, there are a million ways to do everything, Generally a right way
    >> which is documented and supported and well understood and then there are
    >> the hacks and the easy to forget things which are the cause of systems
    >> being hosed 6 months down the line because you can not remember what you
    >> did.
    >>
    >> I know which I prefer.
    >>
    >> So no, not "whatever" IMO. Bad ways become common ways. And when they
    >> become common ways then system stability starts to suffer.
    >>
    >> Witness the run around with NVidia and the NVidia Installer versus
    >> NVidia-GLX for a good example.
    >>
    >> I know you meant well and possibly your way is the correct way now, but
    >> its not the way I was told a long while back and seems to be more robust
    >> in every sense. I would be interested to hear the "official way" and
    >> change my tendencies accordingly if I am wrong. There are just too many
    >> different views out there IMO which can clash and upset the underlying
    >> OS.


    I seriously doubt I'm doing things in any kind of official way. In
    fact, I was warned by people in the Debian mailing list that installing
    Nvidia from their binary /would/ cause problems.

    Perhaps it may, eventually, but in the meantime I've had no problems
    .

    > One of the worst things a user can do with Linux, IMHO, is venture outside
    > the prescribed methods for doing things as documented by his/her particular
    > distribution.
    >
    > For example, with Ubuntu, going to Nvidia's site and downloading drivers
    > etc rather than using the Ubuntu package manager to do stuff.
    >
    > Yes, it can and often does work fine, however a noob will be in deep
    > crap when it doesn't This is especially true if the noob happens to
    > follow outdated instructions.


    I see where you guys are coming from. However, here's my story (in
    brief).

    Although I ran Debian on one no-name laptop, because RedHat wouldn't
    install on it due to a bug I didn't learn of until later, and learned a
    lot that way, I was still primarily a RedHat user.

    One day I wanted to change some behavior on my RedHat laptop, and in
    digging into it, I found such layers of scripting around it as to make
    it very difficult to figure out how to do what I wanted.

    So I went to Debian full-time.

    Now it seems like Debian is making its own layer of scripting, through
    apt-get-supported procedures. But with a difference -- the simple init
    script stuff is still simple. I can still get by with the procedures I
    figured out when installing that first laptop.

    If I were starting out today, I'd undoubtedly bypass the details of
    /etc. At least I no longer build my own gcc!

    Nostalgia:

    I still have that old laptop. I actually /had/ to install Ubuntu on it,
    Debian would not reinstall. And when I tried Debian on it again not
    long ago, the hard drive started crapping out on that old unit. I was
    hoping to use it run mpd next to my stereo.

    > --
    > Moshe Goldfarb
    > Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    > Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    > http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    > Please Visit www.linsux.org


    Nice sig :-(

    --
    When a man you like switches from what he said a year ago, or four years
    ago, he is a broad-minded man who has courage enough to change his mind
    with changing conditions. When a man you don't like does it, he is a
    liar who has broken his promises. -- Franklin Adams

  11. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:20:52 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Moshe Goldfarb. belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:51:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Whatever. It works for me. I don't mind a little cruft accumulation.
    >>>
    >>> Well, there are a million ways to do everything, Generally a right way
    >>> which is documented and supported and well understood and then there are
    >>> the hacks and the easy to forget things which are the cause of systems
    >>> being hosed 6 months down the line because you can not remember what you
    >>> did.
    >>>
    >>> I know which I prefer.
    >>>
    >>> So no, not "whatever" IMO. Bad ways become common ways. And when they
    >>> become common ways then system stability starts to suffer.
    >>>
    >>> Witness the run around with NVidia and the NVidia Installer versus
    >>> NVidia-GLX for a good example.
    >>>
    >>> I know you meant well and possibly your way is the correct way now, but
    >>> its not the way I was told a long while back and seems to be more robust
    >>> in every sense. I would be interested to hear the "official way" and
    >>> change my tendencies accordingly if I am wrong. There are just too many
    >>> different views out there IMO which can clash and upset the underlying
    >>> OS.

    >
    > I seriously doubt I'm doing things in any kind of official way. In
    > fact, I was warned by people in the Debian mailing list that installing
    > Nvidia from their binary /would/ cause problems.
    >
    > Perhaps it may, eventually, but in the meantime I've had no problems
    > .
    >
    >> One of the worst things a user can do with Linux, IMHO, is venture outside
    >> the prescribed methods for doing things as documented by his/her particular
    >> distribution.
    >>
    >> For example, with Ubuntu, going to Nvidia's site and downloading drivers
    >> etc rather than using the Ubuntu package manager to do stuff.
    >>
    >> Yes, it can and often does work fine, however a noob will be in deep
    >> crap when it doesn't This is especially true if the noob happens to
    >> follow outdated instructions.

    >
    > I see where you guys are coming from. However, here's my story (in
    > brief).
    >
    > Although I ran Debian on one no-name laptop, because RedHat wouldn't
    > install on it due to a bug I didn't learn of until later, and learned a
    > lot that way, I was still primarily a RedHat user.
    >
    > One day I wanted to change some behavior on my RedHat laptop, and in
    > digging into it, I found such layers of scripting around it as to make
    > it very difficult to figure out how to do what I wanted.


    That sounds like SuSE, at least the older versions.
    A scripting nightmare, although their hardcopy manual explained it pretty
    well.

    > So I went to Debian full-time.


    Good move

    > Now it seems like Debian is making its own layer of scripting, through
    > apt-get-supported procedures. But with a difference -- the simple init
    > script stuff is still simple. I can still get by with the procedures I
    > figured out when installing that first laptop.
    >
    > If I were starting out today, I'd undoubtedly bypass the details of
    > /etc. At least I no longer build my own gcc!


    Sounds like you would love gentoo, Slack or Linux from scratch
    I generally try to stay away from messing with the scripts because I have
    found my lack of knowledge in that area gets me in trouble.
    It boils down to one thing depending on another which depends upon yet
    another and just changing one little item can result in a real mess.





    >> Moshe Goldfarb
    >> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    >> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    >> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    >> Please Visit www.linsux.org

    >
    > Nice sig :-(


    I forgot to turn it off for this group.
    I only leave it in for COLA.
    My bad

  12. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Moshe Goldfarb. belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:20:52 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>
    >> If I were starting out today, I'd undoubtedly bypass the details of
    >> /etc. At least I no longer build my own gcc!

    >
    > Sounds like you would love gentoo, Slack or Linux from scratch


    I've installed and used Gentoo for awhile. But...

    > I generally try to stay away from messing with the scripts because I have
    > found my lack of knowledge in that area gets me in trouble.
    > It boils down to one thing depending on another which depends upon yet
    > another and just changing one little item can result in a real mess.


    .... I did miss a few items in configuring it, and it had a few problems
    installing the latest of certain apps.

    I'll probably try it again at some point, though.

    I generally take small steps, back up config files and such, and keep a
    log book, so I can undo a mistake.

    --
    No friendship is so cordial or so delicious as that of girl for girl;
    no hatred so intense or immovable as that of woman for woman.
    -- Landor

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2