2012/3/7 Colin Guthrie <mag...@colin.guthr.ie>: > 'Twas brillig, and Wolfgang Bornath at 07/03/12 12:02 did gyre and gimble: >> 2012/3/7 Colin Guthrie <mag...@colin.guthr.ie>: >>> 'Twas brillig, and Wolfgang Bornath at 07/03/12 10:13 did gyre and gimble: >>>> >>>> Different from Guillaume I do care about the impact for the user. >>>> There are many out there who are used to startx and also docs and >>>> howtos which use it. Therefore we will need an explanation for >>>> switching off startx. An explanation to be used in forums, which is a >>>> bit more than just a link to a bug report. In other words: to be >>>> understood by non-techie users. >>> >>> To answer Guillaume's question, I wasn't personally planning on removing >>> it fully. Just documenting that it is broken and that users should not >>> use this as a mechanism for starting X. >>> >>> I would propose just putting in "echo 'startx is deprecated. Here is >>> why..... Press any key to continue anyway.' >&2; read -n 1" in the >>> startx script such that users using it will be warned. Does this seem >>> sensible? >> >> It is sensible and enough for the situation at hand (when the user >> actually punches in "startx" and the command does not work as >> expected). In principle on the same level of information like "file >> not found". That's all which is needed from the technical side. >> >> People more close to the users will have to think of an explanation >> without tech-talk, understandable for the user who comes to the forum >> complaining that the command he had been using for many years (or >> which is written in a documentation) does not work. > > For the avoidance of doubt, I would expect that hitting return would > still end up starting X, just that the afore mentioned (and dutifully > explained to the user) problems with ACLs etc. will be present. > > I'll be able to write some text here that is concise, so I'll do this > shortly.
Great! Now I'll have to teach this waltzing greybeard in the mirror some new moves .... :) -- wobo