I was looking at 'simpleinit' in the util-linux-(ng) suite at one
point. I think it would work good for me because sysvinit is a bit
overkill for my setup.
The example config files for it in the source look easy to work with.
This is a discussion on Prob w/ virtual terminals - Setup ; On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 07:32 -0400, jayjwa wrote: > Lew Pitcher writes: > > > While your suggestion would work on most other distros, it appears that Ubuntu > > doesn't use the /etc/inittab at all. Instead, it uses scripts ...
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 07:32 -0400, jayjwa wrote:
> Lew Pitcherwrites:
>
> > While your suggestion would work on most other distros, it appears that Ubuntu
> > doesn't use the /etc/inittab at all. Instead, it uses scripts in the
> > /etc/event.d directory to manage the process. The OP should check that the
> > scripts /etc/event.d/tty[1-6] exist, and contain the requisite
> > ~ exec /sbin/getty 38400 tty?
> > line, along with the rest of the wrapper script.
> >
> > FWIW, Canonical replaced the usual init(8) with one of their own; telinit
> > (which is a hardlink to init) returns
> > ~ telininit (upstart 0.3.8)
> > ~ Copyright (C) 2007 Canonical Ltd.
> > when I execute "telinit --version" on my Ubuntu system.
>
> Ubuntu is stranger than I previously thought. They are truely creating
> their own animal, mutated off of GNU/Linux and/or Unix (like Mac OSX).
>
>
>
There's not rule forcing the use of a System V style init. Though I
do prefer it, just be cause it's pretty commonplace over the majority
of *ix platforms.
Many distros are experimenting with init replacements.
Even a commercial system like Solaris has replaced the old Sys V style
init. In the case of Solaris though, it's replaced by something
pretty bad (IMHO).
I was looking at 'simpleinit' in the util-linux-(ng) suite at one
point. I think it would work good for me because sysvinit is a bit
overkill for my setup.
The example config files for it in the source look easy to work with.
On Mar 2, 7:18 am, Two Ravenswrote:
> Tom Newton wrote:
> > As you can see, one of the patients at the state mental hospital
> > has slipped away from his minders again and gained access to a
> > computer. This happens now and then.
>
> > I quite reading his gibberish ages ago.
>
> Were that to be true you wouldn't be making this post would you?
> [Assuming that you meant to write 'quit' that is.]
>
> > Regardless of which of his 1000 names he is posting under at the
> > moment.
>
> Mayhap you could, for the enlightenment of the readers of this
> newsgroup, list the 1000, or just 10 of other names under which you
> contend I am posting.
>
> > He's quite harmless.
>
> I am indeed! However can the same be said of you? Your comments posted
> in alt.os.linux.slackware for instance,
>
> > I run as root. A lot of people do. Why shouldn't I? I AM root here.
> > And despite all the paranoid blather such as you have parroted
> > here, we never have any problems because of it.
>
> run counter to current 'best practice' and allow you to 'shoot yourself
> in the foot', which is purely a problem for you. However were others,
> new to GNU/Linux, to follow your example they may lose data that they
> cannot recover.
>
> If anyone wants to make a judgment on me via my recorded posts they are
> free to look up my 'profile' in Google Groups, where they should be
> able to find just about every post I've ever made to usenet. You on the
> other hand seem to have a very short record of posts to usenet on
> Google Groups, why, I can't find some posts that you made which *do*
> appear on my clipboard but for some strange reason don't on your page
> on Google Groups,http://tinyurl.com/3y5vheYour record on Google
> Groups only goes back to February of this year, 69 posts, why is that,
> are you ashamed of what you have posted?
>
> Or perhaps if seeking your posts we should seek those made under the
> name of Alan Connor?
>
> It is difficult to try to throw mud at others, and stay clean, if you're
> not prepared to stand by your own record, mines there, where's yours?
>
> To those tempted to follow any advice given by Tom Newton, Tom N, or
> Alan Connor, I will say be very cautious, check with others on the
> relevant newsgroup and then do see if the question has already been
> answered on eitherhttp://www.google.com/linuxorhttp://groups.google.co.uk/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg
>
> This post will of course be archived by Google Groups, will Tom's post
> to which it was a response be? If he makes a reply to this post, will
> it be archived in Google Groups? Only time will tell.
> --
> Two Ravens
> "Tom Newton, surely the William Topaz McGonagall of
> alt.os.linux.slackware, and now, seemingly, comp.os.linux.setup and
> comp.os.linux.misc.as well!"
To continue with my problem re: virtual Terminals, I checked /etc/
event.d and got the following listing:
zeno@zeno-desktop:~$ ls -al /etc/event.d/
total 92
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2007-10-15 19:17 .
drwxr-xr-x 122 root root 12288 2008-03-16 11:25 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 260 2007-09-16 22:13 control-al
t-delete
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 299 2007-09-16 22:13 logd
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 552 2007-09-16 22:13 rc0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 342 2007-09-16 22:13 rc1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 403 2007-09-16 22:13 rc2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 403 2007-09-16 22:13 rc3
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 403 2007-09-16 22:13 rc4
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 403 2007-09-16 22:13 rc5
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 422 2007-09-16 22:13 rc6
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 485 2007-09-16 22:13 rc-default
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 392 2007-09-16 22:13 rcS
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 461 2007-09-16 22:13 rcS-sulogi
n
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 558 2007-09-16 22:13 sulogin
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 302 2007-09-16 22:13 tty1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty3
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty4
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty5
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty6
In addition, I had re-installed UBU 7.10 and at first was able to
access virtual console. But then I was offered the necessary updates
for
a new install and whack! there went the access. Would anyone know
the significance of all this? When I clic Alt-Ctrl-F# the screen
goes black,
a little click is heard and the monitor goes into powersave mode. I
clic Alt-F7 and back comes the GUI.
So that's all I can offer and I hope that one of you are able to
determine what gives here.
Thanks, Geoffrey
zeno wrote:
> To continue with my problem re: virtual Terminals, I checked /etc/
> event.d and got the following listing:
>
> zeno@zeno-desktop:~$ ls -al /etc/event.d/
> total 92
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2007-10-15 19:17 .
> drwxr-xr-x 122 root root 12288 2008-03-16 11:25 ..
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 260 2007-09-16 22:13 control-al
> t-delete
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 299 2007-09-16 22:13 logd
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 552 2007-09-16 22:13 rc0
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 342 2007-09-16 22:13 rc1
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 403 2007-09-16 22:13 rc2
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 403 2007-09-16 22:13 rc3
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 403 2007-09-16 22:13 rc4
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 403 2007-09-16 22:13 rc5
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 422 2007-09-16 22:13 rc6
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 485 2007-09-16 22:13 rc-default
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 392 2007-09-16 22:13 rcS
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 461 2007-09-16 22:13 rcS-sulogi
> n
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 558 2007-09-16 22:13 sulogin
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 302 2007-09-16 22:13 tty1
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty2
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty3
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty4
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty5
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300 2007-09-16 22:13 tty6
>
> In addition, I had re-installed UBU 7.10 and at first was able to
> access virtual console. But then I was offered the necessary updates
> for
> a new install and whack! there went the access. Would anyone know
> the significance of all this? When I clic Alt-Ctrl-F# the screen
> goes black,
> a little click is heard and the monitor goes into powersave mode. I
> clic Alt-F7 and back comes the GUI.
> So that's all I can offer and I hope that one of you are able to
> determine what gives here.
>
> Thanks, Geoffrey
I'm sorry the flame war got so distracting.
Those don't normally run from the in it scripts: they're run out of
/etc/inittabl. Can you review and post your contents of that file?
I wondier if your expected "getty" for your terminal windows got changed in
your update process.