also sprach Jonathan Gift (on Sat, 03 Mar 2001 08:06:30AM +0100):
> 1. XDM?
just to get this back... why *not* xdm? you don't have to write
functions, it is guaranteed to work, and it's really not inconvenient.
martin
[greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:[EMAIL
PROTEC
on Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 08:06:30AM +0100, Jonathan Gift ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Yes, launching X from a console w/o securing (or exiting) the console
> > session is a security hole. However, securing or exiting the console
> > session is trivial.
> >
>
kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Yes, launching X from a console w/o securing (or exiting) the console
> session is a security hole. However, securing or exiting the console
> session is trivial.
>
I had just taken xlock off yesterday and i read this thread first thing
this morning. Good timing.
To quote MaD dUCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
# also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 08:42:15PM
-0800):
# > $ startx & exit
# >
# > ...which is what I use (do what I mean, not what I say). I can
assure
# > you there are no console sessions on this box.
#
# this will kill my X imme
also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 08:42:15PM -0800):
> $ startx & exit
>
> ...which is what I use (do what I mean, not what I say). I can assure
> you there are no console sessions on this box.
this will kill my X immediately and log off. the only way i got it to
work is
on Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 03:48:30PM -0800, Erik Steffl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> ...
> > > so if you dislike xdm, at least set NoZap in XF86Config!
> >
> > Um. How about:
> >
> > $ startx ; exit
>
> I think better option is to use nohup and actually exit. t
kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
...
> > so if you dislike xdm, at least set NoZap in XF86Config!
>
> Um. How about:
>
> $ startx ; exit
I think better option is to use nohup and actually exit. that way you
are sure. or use virtual console lock:-) if such a beast exists.
erik
also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:28:39PM -0800):
> $ startx ; exit
... which you can probably suspend... even more dangerous because now
the user doesn't even notice that the system has been accessed over
lunch. i think you can suspend. i am not sure.
martin
[greeting
on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:55:51PM -0500, MaD dUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> also sprach Glenn Becker (on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:14:48PM -0500):
> > I don't really know what the purpose of xdm is. There are packages to
> > 'prettify' it, but I just object to the whole thing. :-)
>
> well, do consi
Just wanted to drop a note to say thanks to all the people who replied so
quickly to this little dilemma!
Fankoo! :)
gdh
On 27 Feb 2001, John Hasler wrote:
> > It was the generic 'xdm' that was the problem, but when I tried to remove
> > it, it wanted to take 'task-x-window-system' away, too..
>
> Let it. 'task-x-window-system' is an empty package which does nothing but
> depend on a bunch of X stuff so that the X
> OK clue me in. Whats filerc?
it replaces the whole symlink /etc/rc?.d hierarchy with one simple,
straight forward configuration file. try it, it seemingly converts to
and from on installation and deinstallation...
martin
[greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:[EM
also sprach Andrew Perrin (on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:31:39PM -0500):
> Not that I'm suggesting it, but wouldn't removing getty from consoles 1-6
> fix approach 3.) below?
and you want to log into to do startx how? try it: disable tty 2-6,
log in on tty1, startx, then ctrl-alt-f1 and press ctrl-c. you
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Gavin Hamill wrote:
>> 3. Remove gdm completely by doing something like "apt-get remove gdm" as
>> root.
>
>Hi :) It was the generic 'xdm' that was the problem, but when I tried to
>remove it, it wanted to take 'task-x-window-system' away, too.. so I
>decided to just remove th
>
> i would suggest you set up your machine with two primary runlevels, 2
> and 3, where 3 is the graphical login equivalent of 2, which means
> that there exists a /etc/rc3.d/xdm link but not any other xdm link in
> /etc/rc[0-24-6]. (you should be using filerc anyway, it's the smartest
> change t
also sprach John Hasler (on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:23:38PM -0600):
> > well, do consider a console login and a 'startx', xlock running and you
> > out on lunch break, while i come into your office,...
> You might find it a little hard to get past the dogs on the front porch.
i am so down with dogs. a
also sprach Pollywog (on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:11:14PM +):
> Where is this documented? I might want to try it.
woops.
DontZap
man 5 XF86Config
martin
[greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]@@@.net
--
"and if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
Not that I'm suggesting it, but wouldn't removing getty from consoles 1-6
fix approach 3.) below?
ap
--
Andrew J Perrin - Ph.D. Candidate, UC Berkeley, Dept. of Sociology
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA - http://demog.berkeley
martin writes:
> well, do consider a console login and a 'startx', xlock running and you
> out on lunch break, while i come into your office,...
You might find it a little hard to get past the dogs on the front porch.
> ...scp all your confidential docs to me...
This message contains every bit o
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:55:51PM -0500, MaD dUCK wrote:
> also sprach Glenn Becker (on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:14:48PM -0500):
> > I don't really know what the purpose of xdm is. There are packages to
> > 'prettify' it, but I just object to the whole thing. :-)
>
> well, do consider a console login
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:55:51 -0500, MaD dUCK said:
>
> so if you dislike xdm, at least set NoZap in XF86Config!
NoZap ?
Where is this documented? I might want to try it.
thanks
--
Andrew
Thanks. Good point indeed!
Glenn Becker
Online Producer, Community
SCIFI.COM
At 4:55pm on Tue, 27 Feb 2001, MaD dUCK wrote:
> also sprach Glenn Becker (on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:14:48PM -0500):
> > I don't really know what the purpose of xdm is. There are packages to
> > 'prettify' it, but I just
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> Hi :) It was the generic 'xdm' that was the problem, but when I tried to
> remove it, it wanted to take 'task-x-window-system' away, too.. so I
> decided to just remove the startup lines in /etc/rc.* :)
There's no problem with removing task-x-window-syst
also sprach Kirrily Robert (on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:35:19PM -0500):
> The program that's doing this is gdm, the graphical display manager.
"gnome display manager"
and no, not everyone is running gnome. thank god.
i would suggest you set up your machine with two primary runlevels, 2
and 3, where 3
gdh writes:
> It was the generic 'xdm' that was the problem, but when I tried to remove
> it, it wanted to take 'task-x-window-system' away, too..
Let it. 'task-x-window-system' is an empty package which does nothing but
depend on a bunch of X stuff so that the X stuff gets installed when you
ins
also sprach Glenn Becker (on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:14:48PM -0500):
> I don't really know what the purpose of xdm is. There are packages to
> 'prettify' it, but I just object to the whole thing. :-)
well, do consider a console login and a 'startx', xlock running and
you out on lunch break, while i co
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 09:37:53PM +, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> > 3. Remove gdm completely by doing something like "apt-get remove gdm" as
> > root.
>
> Hi :) It was the generic 'xdm' that was the problem, but when I tried to
> remove it, it wanted to take 'task-x-window-system' away, too.. so I
>
> 3. Remove gdm completely by doing something like "apt-get remove gdm" as
> root.
Hi :) It was the generic 'xdm' that was the problem, but when I tried to
remove it, it wanted to take 'task-x-window-system' away, too.. so I
decided to just remove the startup lines in /etc/rc.* :)
Thanks!
gdh
In lists.projects.debian.user, you wrote:
>I have a MOST bizarre and interesting problem at the moment!
>
>After my 'unstable' machine boots.. about 2 minutes later, X will start
>up, with an xconsole in the corner showing 'dmesg' output, and a simple
>graphical login prompt in the centre of the sc
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Glenn Becker wrote:
> I don't really know what the purpose of xdm is. There are packages to
> 'prettify' it, but I just object to the whole thing. :-)
Urk! Yes.. 'This version of Linux is better because it's version 7 instead
of 2.2 and it has a nicer looking login prompt'
I don't really know what the purpose of xdm is. There are packages to
'prettify' it, but I just object to the whole thing. :-)
Glenn Becker
Online Producer, Community
SCIFI.COM
At 9:12pm on Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Glenn Becker wrote:
>
> > It sounds like yo
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Glenn Becker wrote:
> It sounds like you have xdm running. I don't much like it either - it is
> difficult to get to pure console with that thing in the way.
You're quite right I do indeed have xdm running, and had already noticed
the problem vanished when xdm did, but I assu
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:59:54 + (GMT), Gavin Hamill said:
> I have a MOST bizarre and interesting problem at the moment!
>
> After my 'unstable' machine boots.. about 2 minutes later, X will start
> up, with an xconsole in the corner showing 'dmesg' output, and a simple
> graphical login
It sounds like you have xdm running. I don't much like it either - it is
difficult to get to pure console with that thing in the way.
As a temp fix you can /bin/su root and run killall xdm. this will blow
away X and take you to console login.
If you want it never to show up again, you should K o
I have a MOST bizarre and interesting problem at the moment!
After my 'unstable' machine boots.. about 2 minutes later, X will start
up, with an xconsole in the corner showing 'dmesg' output, and a simple
graphical login prompt in the centre of the screen forces a login before
anything else can be
35 matches
Mail list logo
