disabling gdm - stability warning? - Debian

This is a discussion on disabling gdm - stability warning? - Debian ; I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should need to just type 'startx'. This is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: disabling gdm - stability warning?

  1. disabling gdm - stability warning?

    I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
    learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
    need to just type 'startx'.

    This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
    for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
    gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
    disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
    system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
    until i get some answers from fellow console users.

    I have used freebsd before and i always used startx. There was a problem
    with permissions though e.g i could not alter configuration files in x,
    unless i booted with gdm enabled in a config script. Apart from this,
    there were no other problems i noticed.

    In theory, there should be no problems cause the xorg server is totally
    separate from any display manager like xdm,kdm,gdm. I suppose there could
    be problems with xwrapper if x is started other than through a dm. But i
    really need to know what the actual experience has been from people who
    prefer the console - startx approach.

    This is kind of paranoid - but i have already messed up my system before
    by just trying stuff without reading / checking properly and i dont plan
    on that happening again. So my question is simply has anyone experienced
    problems - of any kind - from disabling gdm and booting to a console (then
    starting x with startx)?
    thanks for reading this.

  2. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    * gnu joey peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
    > learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
    > need to just type 'startx'.
    >
    > This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
    > for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
    > gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
    > disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
    > system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
    > until i get some answers from fellow console users.


    You could do this:

    $ su
    # cd /etc/rc2.d
    # mkdir disabled
    # mv S30gdm disabled

    Reboot to try it.

    Actually, you don't need to be reboot except to verify. You can also
    login to a virtual console and run

    # /etc/init.d/gdm stop

    If you don't like the result, login on one of the virtual consoles as
    root and move the S30gm link back to /etc/rc2.d

    --
    I won't mention any names, because I don't want to get sun4's into
    trouble... :-) -- Larry Wall in <11333@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>

  3. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    Linonut writes:

    > * gnu joey peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
    >> learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
    >> need to just type 'startx'.
    >>
    >> This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
    >> for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
    >> gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
    >> disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
    >> system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
    >> until i get some answers from fellow console users.

    >
    > You could do this:
    >
    > $ su
    > # cd /etc/rc2.d
    > # mkdir disabled
    > # mv S30gdm disabled


    This is incredibly bad advice. Far better to remove the su and use sudo
    on each line.

    > # sudo cd /etc/rc2.d
    > # sudo mkdir disabled
    > # sudo mv S30gdm disabled


    Of course sudo needs to be configured properly.

    >
    > Reboot to try it.
    >
    > Actually, you don't need to be reboot except to verify. You can also
    > login to a virtual console and run
    >
    > # /etc/init.d/gdm stop


    This does not prove his changes have worked.

    >
    > If you don't like the result, login on one of the virtual consoles as
    > root and move the S30gm link back to /etc/rc2.d


    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.





    --
    "Hey, who needs mp3, wma, acc when we can have ogg?"
    -- "Moshe Goldfarb." in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  4. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    Hadron writes:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * gnu joey peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
    >>> learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
    >>> need to just type 'startx'.
    >>>
    >>> This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
    >>> for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
    >>> gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
    >>> disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
    >>> system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
    >>> until i get some answers from fellow console users.

    >>
    >> You could do this:
    >>
    >> $ su
    >> # cd /etc/rc2.d
    >> # mkdir disabled
    >> # mv S30gdm disabled

    >
    > This is incredibly bad advice. Far better to remove the su and use sudo
    > on each line.
    >
    >> # sudo cd /etc/rc2.d


    Sorry - no sudo required in line above.

  5. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    gnu joey wrote:
    > I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
    > learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
    > need to just type 'startx'.
    >
    > This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
    > for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
    > gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
    > disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
    > system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
    > until i get some answers from fellow console users.
    >
    > I have used freebsd before and i always used startx. There was a problem
    > with permissions though e.g i could not alter configuration files in x,
    > unless i booted with gdm enabled in a config script. Apart from this,
    > there were no other problems i noticed.


    > In theory, there should be no problems cause the xorg server is totally
    > separate from any display manager like xdm,kdm,gdm. I suppose there could
    > be problems with xwrapper if x is started other than through a dm. But i
    > really need to know what the actual experience has been from people who
    > prefer the console - startx approach.


    > This is kind of paranoid - but i have already messed up my system before
    > by just trying stuff without reading / checking properly and i dont plan
    > on that happening again. So my question is simply has anyone experienced
    > problems - of any kind - from disabling gdm and booting to a console (then
    > starting x with startx)?
    > thanks for reading this.


    When you get to the GDM login, Ctrl+Alt+F1 will put you into the text
    mode (command line), Ctrl+Alt+F7 will put you back at the GDM login.
    --
    Jimmy Johnson
    Debian Linux - Registered Linux User #380263 - "If Microsoft ever does
    applications for Linux it means I've won.": Linus Torvalds

  6. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    "Linonut" wrote
    > * gnu joey peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
    >> learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
    >> need to just type 'startx'.
    >>
    >> This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
    >> for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
    >> gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
    >> disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
    >> system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
    >> until i get some answers from fellow console users.

    >
    > You could do this:
    >
    > $ su
    > # cd /etc/rc2.d
    > # mkdir disabled
    > # mv S30gdm disabled


    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.)

    This way all the OP would need to do it edit /etc/inittab and make sure he
    boots into RL2 rather than 5. But sadly that useful feature seems to have
    been messed up by the ubiquitous insistence on gdm in the distro he is
    using.

    CC


  7. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    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.

  8. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:39:46 +0100, Magnate wrote:

    > This way all the OP would need to do it edit /etc/inittab....


    Are you sure that /etc/inittab exists?


  9. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    * Jimmy Johnson peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > When you get to the GDM login, Ctrl+Alt+F1 will put you into the text
    > mode (command line), Ctrl+Alt+F7 will put you back at the GDM login.


    However, GDM will still be running.

    --
    Be warned that typing \fBkillall \fIname\fP may not have the desired
    effect on non-Linux systems, especially when done by a privileged user.
    -- From the killall manual page

  10. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    Well, since i wrote this question - i tried to reboot and (like i
    suspected) there is a problem with the defaults that the auto setup
    scripts installed.

    When booting the system today, on starting gdm - i get a blanc screen. it
    is a complete system freeze and it happens if i enable gdm with rcconf or
    if i manually startx. the only way out is to pull the plug.

    because of this i had no choice but to disable gdm through rcconf.

    so my question is now, how can i fix the problem? why is gdm freezing my
    system and how can i fix it. btw. the system i am referring to is Not the
    system that iam running the new kernel on.

  11. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    Jimmy Johnson writes:

    > gnu joey wrote:
    >> I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
    >> learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
    >> need to just type 'startx'.
    >>
    >> This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
    >> for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
    >> gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
    >> disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
    >> system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
    >> until i get some answers from fellow console users.
    >>
    >> I have used freebsd before and i always used startx. There was a problem
    >> with permissions though e.g i could not alter configuration files in x,
    >> unless i booted with gdm enabled in a config script. Apart from this,
    >> there were no other problems i noticed.

    >
    >> In theory, there should be no problems cause the xorg server is totally
    >> separate from any display manager like xdm,kdm,gdm. I suppose there could
    >> be problems with xwrapper if x is started other than through a dm. But i
    >> really need to know what the actual experience has been from people who
    >> prefer the console - startx approach.

    >
    >> This is kind of paranoid - but i have already messed up my system before
    >> by just trying stuff without reading / checking properly and i dont plan
    >> on that happening again. So my question is simply has anyone experienced
    >> problems - of any kind - from disabling gdm and booting to a console (then
    >> starting x with startx)? thanks for reading this.

    >
    > When you get to the GDM login, Ctrl+Alt+F1 will put you into the text
    > mode (command line), Ctrl+Alt+F7 will put you back at the GDM login.


    GDM is still running eating potentially valuable resources.

    sudo /etc/init.d/gdm stop

    from your new full screen should fix that.

    The correct way is the one I mentioned in an earlier post in this
    thread.

    --
    - "Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out
    some major $$$ to develop this thing. This is a great opportunity for
    alternative operating systems to intercept the ball, and run it back for a
    touchdown.": comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  12. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    Linonut wrote:
    > * Jimmy Johnson peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> When you get to the GDM login, Ctrl+Alt+F1 will put you into the text
    >> mode (command line), Ctrl+Alt+F7 will put you back at the GDM login.


    > However, GDM will still be running.


    To completely stop GDM, Ctrl+Alt+F1, login, su to root, "/etc/init.d/gdm
    stop" and that will kill GDM, "/etc/init.d/gdm start" will get you back
    to the loin screen.
    --
    Jimmy Johnson

    Debian - Registered Linux User #380263 - "If Microsoft ever does
    applications for Linux it means I've won.": Linus Torvalds

  13. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    gnu joey writes:
    >Well, since i wrote this question - i tried to reboot and (like i
    >suspected) there is a problem with the defaults that the auto setup
    >scripts installed.
    >
    >When booting the system today, on starting gdm - i get a blanc screen. it
    >is a complete system freeze and it happens if i enable gdm with rcconf or
    >if i manually startx. the only way out is to pull the plug.


    Sounds like your X server does not work, and kills keyboard input,
    too, so you cannot switch to the console (you tried that, right?).

    You'll have to play around with various options (drivers etc.) in
    xorg.conf. For thius purpose it is helpful if you can log into the
    machine from another nearby machine with ssh; this usually saves you
    the hard-reset or plug-pulling step.

    BTW, pulling the plug: No reset button?

    >so my question is now, how can i fix the problem? why is gdm freezing my
    >system and how can i fix it.


    It's probably not gdm, it's X. Gdm would be easy to fix by selecting
    another dm, e.g. xdm, or by using startx.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  14. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    "Dave Uhring" wrote
    > On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:39:46 +0100, Magnate wrote:
    >
    >> This way all the OP would need to do it edit /etc/inittab....

    >
    > Are you sure that /etc/inittab exists?


    It does in every version of Debian I've used, including Lenny which I'm
    using now.

    CC


  15. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    "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.

    CC


  16. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    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.

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

  17. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    In <48d26fd0$1_7@news.bluewin.ch> Mark Madsen:

    [Snip...]

    > never once felt the absence of a runlevel....


    I generally agree, but I find the ability to change run levels "on the fly"
    to be a *personal* convenience at times.

    For example, init 3 on SuSE, then run the "sax" tool (X setup) to tweak the
    X configuration (archive config, swap video monitors/cards, etc.). Then, an
    init 5 after testing new config (or sometimes, restoring old config).

    I'm moving from SuSE to Kubuntu, and I occasionally miss this "habit" which
    I developed with SuSE.

    FWIW: a matter of personal preference, and should not be taken as a critism
    of Debian or its derivatives in any way.

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    I toss GoogleGroup posts from gitgo (http://improve-usenet.org).

  18. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    On 09/18/2008 10:50 AM, Harold Stevens wrote:
    > In <48d26fd0$1_7@news.bluewin.ch> Mark Madsen:
    >
    > [Snip...]
    >
    >> never once felt the absence of a runlevel....

    >
    > I generally agree, but I find the ability to change run levels "on the fly"
    > to be a *personal* convenience at times.
    >
    > For example, init 3 on SuSE, then run the "sax" tool (X setup) to tweak the
    > X configuration (archive config, swap video monitors/cards, etc.). Then, an
    > init 5 after testing new config (or sometimes, restoring old config).
    >
    > I'm moving from SuSE to Kubuntu, and I occasionally miss this "habit" which
    > I developed with SuSE.
    >
    > FWIW: a matter of personal preference, and should not be taken as a critism
    > of Debian or its derivatives in any way.
    >


    With Ubuntu 8.04 you can also configure the runlevels to start different
    processes with sysv-rc-conf (or any other runlevel configuration
    utility). Upstart is Borked by Design(TM) since it does not support
    setting the initial runlevel from Grub, but it's not so hard to give
    upstart the required ability:

    http://upstart.ubuntu.com/wiki/OutstandingIssues

  19. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    In Mumia W.:

    [Snip...]

    > http://upstart.ubuntu.com/wiki/OutstandingIssues


    Thanks--interesting to see options published for doing runlevel mods.

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    I toss GoogleGroup posts from gitgo (http://improve-usenet.org).

  20. Re: disabling gdm - stability warning?

    Mark Madsen wrote:

    > 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.



    And a *BIG* Amen to that Bro. I will add that a Ubuntu LTS Base
    install is also good.
    --
    Jimmy Johnson

    Registered Linux User #380263
    GNU/Linux Debian Etch

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast