Brian wrote: > On Wed 04 Jun 2014 at 23:56:37 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > > > Brian wrote: > > > > > Those who use startx etc have some expectation of being provided with > > > uncomplicated correct information. > > > > The 'startx' is basically the "simple" way to start X and to use the > > system supplied defaults. Which is a good way to get things going for > > the new person who doesn't know what they want or who are happy with > > the defaults. It isn't required though and after making a few > > customizations I find it easier to just use 'xinit' directly and my > > own full .xinitrc file with only my own choices made there. (shrug) > > > > > Being told to use ~/.Xdefaults isn't in that category. The sooner > > > any mention of it or .xinitrc in Debian is stamped out the better. > > > > I think use of .Xdefaults isn't as good as .Xresources. But there > > isn't anything wrong with .xinitrc. What is your complaint about it? > > In spite of my hyperbole it isn't .xinitrc in itself which is the cause > of my discontent but its being presented as being equivalent to > .xsession. It may or may not matter that the /etc/X11/Xsession.d files > in are not used, but not appreciating that this could lead to a > misconfigured or partially working system is one consequence of > following advice which often does not apply to a Debian system. The > Debian Reference gets it right and manages to do so without any mention > of .xinitrc.
I would be interested in having a summary. For my purposes, I use startx, and 'man startx' tells me to put my initializations in .xinitrc, and does not refer to any other init files. I used to have an .xsession file, which eventually stopped working. 'man xsession' gives some other, more complicated advice. I guess it's time to start reading about this. :^) Regards, Joel -- Joel Roth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140606212441.GA28723@sprite