anti_xdm

This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.



To: svlug@lists.svlug.org
Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 11:33:45AM -0700,
From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [svlug] Configuring X in Debian

On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:17:30AM -0700, Scott Reimert
(SReimert@centerbeam.com) wrote:
> I'm trying to see how Debian compares to Red Hat. I've been using Red Hat
> since 5.1, and have been meaning to give Debian a try for sometime.
> 
> When I start X under the new Debian release, X and xdm runs and everything
> looks good. When I log in, X just restarts. 

Don't do that.

Run startx from the command line, and log your output:

    $ startx -- 2>&1 | tee startx.log

Post the actual output.

I generally strongly discourage the use of an X display manager for a
locally-accessed box.  You're complicating the startup process, making
diagnosis and debugging more complex, and guaranteeing yourself the
overhead of running an X session (the ?DM process) when you explicitly
aren't using X.

XDM may have some convenience for remote access, but it's still not a
good idea as you now have an unsecured X session on the wire.  Note that
some ?DM's (e.g.:  GDM) don't support networked connections at all.
Dumbth.


> I checked .xsession-errors, and it says that I can't log in because
> I'm not authorized. Keep in mind, this is a fresh install -- I haven't
> monkeyed with it. 

Check /etc/X11/Xserver -- this may be an issue.

> Checking the environment, DISPLAY is not set. If I set DISPLAY to :0 then
> startx, it runs fine. 

Weird.

> 1) Where is the correct place to set DISPLAY?  Obviously a login file is
to
> late because X restarts before it even reads the file.

Display should be configured automajickally when you run startx.

> 2) Is it possible that the DISPLAY environment variable is not the
problem?

I would tend to think so.

===

From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:51:39 -0700
To: svlug <svlug@lists.svlug.org>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Configuring X in Debian

On Chris Waters (xtifr@dsp.net) wrote:

> On kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> > On Scott Reimert (SReimert@centerbeam.com) wrote:

> > > I'm trying to see how Debian compares to Red Hat. I've been using Red Hat
> > > since 5.1, and have been meaning to give Debian a try for sometime.

> > > When I start X under the new Debian release, X and xdm runs and everything
> > > looks good. When I log in, X just restarts.

> > Don't do that.

> > Run startx from the command line, and log your output:

> >     $ startx -- 2>&1 | tee startx.log

> This is not necessarily good advice (although it's good for
> debugging). 

That was, in fact, a debugging stanza.

> For one thing, xdm should work, and it would be nice to
> know what the problem is.  For another, this is slightly more
> insecure.  Anyone with access to the machine can switch to the VC
> where X was started, suspend it, and then have full shell access to
> your personal account on your machine.  If they're careful, this can
> be all-but-undetectable.  (Yes, anyone with console access can break
> in in other ways, but not quite so undetectably.)

I typically run X with "startx -- :1 1>.startx.log 2>&1 & exit".  I'm
also in the habit of scanning virtual consoles (or running "w") to see
if I've got any stray logins.

> If you *always* use X, then the overhead of xdm should be pretty
> minimal.  And, as I say, it *should* work, so figuring out why it
> doesn't could be an interesting learning experience.  :-)

I'd prefer avoiding the overhead in the first place.  It's unnecessary.

===

the rest of The Pile (a partial mailing list archive)

doom@kzsu.stanford.edu