On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:02:01PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (enrico.weig...@gr13.net): > > > Could anyone please enlighten me, what all these "seat" and "session" > > stuff is really about ? What is the underlying problem to solve here ? > > Below are a couple of things I've written on the subject here and > elsewhere. > > > > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 01:29:23 -0700 > From: Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> > To: dng@lists.dyne.org > Subject: Re: [DNG] F1 and special usernames on the login screen > > Quoting Arnt Gulbrandsen (a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no): > > > Multiseat is unimportant, barely significant. The price of computers > > has dropped enough that the ones with UIs are now personal devices. > > Might be obvious, but just mentioning: 'Multiseat' (GNOME/system > implementation of which proximately caused the systemd-logind > omnishambles of several years ago) needs to be distinguished from > multiuser. > > Unix has been inherently, by design, _multiuser_ since its beginning, > and I for one would be quite sad if my Linux servers were suddenly > 'personal devices': E.g., a Web / SMTPd / ftpd / sshd / rsyncd / NTPd > server like the one in my garage suddenly failing to serve remote users > would be a misfortune. > > I have to confess that I personally didn't understand how multiseat > differs from multiuser on Linux until quite recently. Pro bono publico: > It concerns simultaneous _local_ users. The Linux kernel[1] can, > unaided, make _only one_ (local) virtual terminal active at a time. Sure, > you can (e.g.) have one X11 server attached to /dev/tty7 and another to > /dev/tty8, but it turns out that any time one's active, the other can't > be -- even if two physical sets of console hardware are attached. > So, multiseat is, in short, a system software elaboration to fix that. > > This missing kernel functionality isn't important to either you, Simon > Walter, or me, but it's a genuine limitation nonetheless, and there's > nothing wrong _per se_ with offering ways around that limitation. Note > that systemd-consoled is not the only candidate: kmscon preceded it, > albeit development is currently stalled. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kmscon > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiseat_configuration#GNU.2FLinux also > mentions several other current implementations. > > So, multiseat is _not_ a systemd invention, nor a systemd monopoly. > > Latter page mentions 'Multiseat setups are great for schools, libraries, > and family computers.' Arguably true, _maybe_. Depends on the economics > of additional consoles versus extra complete computers, I guess. I > enjoyed using minicomputers during high school: A modern revival of that > computing model using Linux might make money sense or might not, depending. > Otherwise, I wouldn't say today that it'll necessarily be 'unimportant' in > years to come. > > [1] Some other *ixes such as SunOS and Irix allegedly (per Wikipedia) > had multiseat capability since early days, though I have no further > details.
Rond about 1990 I was using an X terminal. 8 megabytes of memory, impleented the X protocol, and almost nothing else. It presented a login screen on sshich I could tell it which coputer on the network I wanated to log in to, as sell as the usual name and password, and after that I had X with a window manager. If I wanter a so-called desktop, I'd tell the remote machine to start it. It worked just fine. Nothing special needed on the remote machine. THe X terminal could even boot over the net. It did not need much in the way of local permanent storage. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
