On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 08:22:20 +0000, Anthony Campbell <a...@acampbell.uk> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2015, John L. Ries wrote: > > Actually, if someone is starting X via startx instead of a display manager, > > it normally means either that the user is trying to test his X > > configuration, or that X is only intended to run intermittently, with TTY > > mode being the norm. So having X replace the terminal in that circumstance > > does not at all strike me as a happy thing, > > I don't agree with this. I don't use a desktop manager but even if I > did, I'd prefer to start X via startx. The whole point of an X display manager is that you don't need to start X manually- you just select your session and log in. How do you envision using a display manager and still starting X manually? Until recently, I did not use a display manager. I used startx and Xfce. I recently switched to MATE, and was basically told by the Debian wiki that I had to use a display manager (so I installed LightDM too). (this is addressed to the list now) Is this actually true? Is it possible for MATE to be configured to work properly with permissions, PolicyKit, etc. without a DM, like Xfce is? My MATE has all sorts of dodgy issues even with a DM when it comes to permissions and various settings menus. > This gives me more control. If > something goes wrong with X you are screwed if you don't have an easily > accessible TTY to diagnose the problem. I'm sure I'm not alone in > this. You're not alone in this. But technically an easily accessible TTY is still available even with the new setup- it's just in a different VT than it used to be. I don't really see the problem with this, since the other Alt+F<key>s still work, and the other VTs are still accessible (although I can understand the 'muscle memory' complaints of some').