The Khan Artist
Warrior for God
Eagle said:
Hiht Ctrl-Alt-F1 and log in to the console. You can switch to X with Ctrl-Alt-F7, and then you can go the console if anything goes wrong. No need to hit reset.
Linux Help
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
Hiht Ctrl-Alt-F1 and log in to the console. You can switch to X with Ctrl-Alt-F7, and then you can go the console if anything goes wrong. No need to hit reset.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Cyberman: slackware? bleh, unix mongerer
You shouldn't need to edit the startx script in redhat, it comes configured correctly.
But anyway....
I am a bit confused about what your describing, but what he is refering to is what is in laymans terms described as "graphical login", e.g. it goes right to X and you don't start with a bash prompt. This is a bad thing should your video drivers fail. Redhat picks graphical login by default, you would know if you chose to log in via the console. When you actualy type in your login name, you will be doing so in a plain "dos like" mode (e.g. no windows).
Sure the graphical login looks pretty, but its not practical for your average user. After you log in, you can just type "startx", and your x-windows starts in only 5 seconds or so.
You can switch modes by editing your /etc/inittab file. You'll see a section like this:
Notice how the example I show is set for 3 (the number right after id, that is the mode you would probably prefer. 5 is the graphical login of course.
You shouldn't need to edit the startx script in redhat, it comes configured correctly.
But anyway....
Eagle said:
I am a bit confused about what your describing, but what he is refering to is what is in laymans terms described as "graphical login", e.g. it goes right to X and you don't start with a bash prompt. This is a bad thing should your video drivers fail. Redhat picks graphical login by default, you would know if you chose to log in via the console. When you actualy type in your login name, you will be doing so in a plain "dos like" mode (e.g. no windows).
Sure the graphical login looks pretty, but its not practical for your average user. After you log in, you can just type "startx", and your x-windows starts in only 5 seconds or so.
You can switch modes by editing your /etc/inittab file. You'll see a section like this:
Notice how the example I show is set for 3 (the number right after id
, that is the mode you would probably prefer. 5 is the graphical login of course.
Last edited:
tooie
New member
I think a gui interface is always better then a text one.. a lot easier to use, at least with out a big learning curve. But you should have an option like boot in VGA mode, if video card is not working correct to change it's settings. Since every monitor/video card should be able to handle that ?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #65
AlphaWolf said:Cyberman: slackware? bleh, unix mongerer
You shouldn't need to edit the startx script in redhat, it comes configured correctly.
But anyway....
I am a bit confused about what your describing, but what he is refering to is what is in laymans terms described as "graphical login", e.g. it goes right to X and you don't start with a bash prompt. This is a bad thing should your video drivers fail. Redhat picks graphical login by default, you would know if you chose to log in via the console. When you actualy type in your login name, you will be doing so in a plain "dos like" mode (e.g. no windows).
Sure the graphical login looks pretty, but its not practical for your average user. After you log in, you can just type "startx", and your x-windows starts in only 5 seconds or so.
You can switch modes by editing your /etc/inittab file. You'll see a section like this:
Notice how the example I show is set for 3 (the number right after id
Actually I never have done the graphical login. When I first setup redhat it asked me which one I wanted and I chose text.
What I meant is that Redhat focuses on configuration through GUI tools, and thus you are completley helpless when XWindows fails, because you never learned to do anything different. The beauty of Linux and Unix in general lies in the CLI. For example, my mom was having some trouble yesterday printing. What I did was ssh into the computer from school and set up the computer. Voila
Redhat has other drawbacks as well. RPM, keeps files in strange places, bloated, and it rips of KDE and gnome a whole lot.
Redhat has other drawbacks as well. RPM, keeps files in strange places, bloated, and it rips of KDE and gnome a whole lot.
This is true to some extent, but you must consider that Linux has to be able to run with no graphical stuff at all, on servers.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
To me command line is easier. But if GUI is so desired, the framework is in place to make it usable in any situation. For example, (little known feature among newbies) I can be running X on one linux computer, ssh into another, execute an x based app on its end, and its window shows up on my end. Doesn't take a lot of bandwidth to do this either, and the other end doesn't even have to be running X.
tooie
New member
Slougi said:
I agree totaly .. but graphic interfaces are better suited mostly for desktops. Which is what I was looking at. I think you should nearly have a totaly different distro for servers and one for desktop. Not one trying to handle both.
I know people like that you can get remote access to a computer, but I think this is also very dangerous as well security wise. It is like have a trojan sitting on your computer from day 1. Granted it is not as open .. but most passwords are not that hard to break with brute force and most people would never know about it.
Agreed. Redhat for example is supposed to be a server distribution, but it doesn't really do that well there. Debian, Gentoo, Slackware etc are much better suited for servers.tooie said:
Also for example KDE has very good gui tools. The few things that need to be set up without gui tools are xfree and, erm, actually that is it, apart from boot loaders and such. Xfree actually has a gui setup tool as well (x86cfg) althoug I like the command line based xf86config better.
Well, I do not really perceive it as a security problem. The SSH protocol is quite secure (thank god telnet is no more), and there are loggers so you can see if anyone has been trying to hack you, if so just block that ip/ip range. If I see someone trying to connect I get suspicious, if it happens often (more than once or twice) I block the IP.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
tooie said:
No no no. See, your problem is you're thinking windows here
Linux can do this kind of thing in an extremely secure manner. Not only that, but in linux it is also seamless, unlike windows. Remotely controlling a linux system actualy works unlike windows. It's the way that linux is built from the ground up, EVERYTHING is client <--> server based.If you want to see for yourself how trusted SSH is, go run port 22 scans on a few server blocks, you'll find that a lot of them openly accept SSHD logins.
Malcolm
Not a Moderator
The Khan Artist
Warrior for God
Malcolm said:
I have AIX 4.1.4.1 on an Apple Network Server 500/132. I'm trying to sell it.
Malcolm
Not a Moderator
Its a very shitty system. So slow, doesn't have many basic unix commands and wost of all ym College has tried to combine AIX with BSD. Its like getting killed then everyone around you takes all your valubles, then your clothes, THEN hack off your limbs to sell on voodoo markets.
it sends shivers down my spine.
it sends shivers down my spine.
EVERYONE?!Malcolm said:not at the college here, every one has root privs over their space on the network BUT they can use their power to override everything (I know 'cause I did it
Damn that is retarded.
tooie
New member
AlphaWolf said:No no no. See, your problem is you're thinking windows here
If you want to see for yourself how trusted SSH is, go run port 22 scans on a few server blocks, you'll find that a lot of them openly accept SSHD logins.
granted that I have not really tried it so I could easily be more harsh. It is not a security issue if you pay attention to the logs and know what your looking for. My issue is some one who has a perm connection to the net installs a distro with everything and id not even aware that this is there and some one spends time trying to hack in them.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #79
Well I stil cant get the drivers to work I dont know what else to try really. Ive re-compiled them using "rpmbuild --rebuild" I did exactly what the Nvidia readme said, installed it completely outside of the GUI, and I still cant get it to work. All I can think of now is to try the previous version.
Any other ideas?
I dont know what else to try really. Ive re-compiled them using "rpmbuild --rebuild" I did exactly what the Nvidia readme said, installed it completely outside of the GUI, and I still cant get it to work. All I can think of now is to try the previous version.Any other ideas?
What exactly is the output of Xfree when it fails? Paste a log. What version are you using?Eagle said:Well I stil cant get the drivers to work
Any other ideas?