Hello Guys…
I need to revert the X11 graphical server to Console 7. and enable VT1 as normal text as it was on the old distr..
Sincerely
AndyBe
+1
It can be quite annoying when the X console is changed from one Virtual Console to another as happens with almost every release of CentOS and Fedora. I would really like it to be always consistent at Console 7. And the "real" system console should always be Console 1.
I am OK with change, but this seems to be fairly random change with know apparent advantage or benefit.
It is a big deal to keep it consistent. That way I know what to tell customers when they call and I have to talk them through a procedure over the phone.
Thanks!
On 12/18/2014 08:10 AM, Andreas Benzler wrote:
Hello Guys…
I need to revert the X11 graphical server to Console 7. and enable VT1 as normal text as it was on the old distr..
Sincerely
AndyBe
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
David P. Both, RHCE Millennium Technology Consulting LLC Raleigh, NC, USA 919-389-8678
dboth@millennium-technology.com
www.millennium-technology.com www.databook.bz - Home of the DataBook for Linux DataBook is a Registered Trademark of David Both
This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in error, please delete it immediately.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:20 AM, David Both dboth@millennium-technology.com wrote:
+1
It can be quite annoying when the X console is changed from one Virtual Console to another as happens with almost every release of CentOS and Fedora. I would really like it to be always consistent at Console 7. And the "real" system console should always be Console 1.
I am OK with change, but this seems to be fairly random change with know apparent advantage or benefit.
It is a big deal to keep it consistent. That way I know what to tell customers when they call and I have to talk them through a procedure over the phone.
Good luck with that... The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades.
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
.............. The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades.
What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version.
* The dramatic upheaval in C7; * The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades; * The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly stable C6 product;
all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction').
Happy New Year to all to everyone.
On 12/28/14 20:52, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
.............. The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades.
What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version.
- The dramatic upheaval in C7;
- The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades;
- The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly
stable C6 product;
all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction').
Happy New Year to all to everyone.
Well said! I've been waiting since the C6.6 "upgrade" to get a kernel with the reported patch that fixes the web cam incompatibility that was introduced with the new C6.6 kernel. I would change distributions in a minute if there was a better choice.
On Sun, December 28, 2014 8:57 pm, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 12/28/14 20:52, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
.............. The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades.
What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version.
- The dramatic upheaval in C7;
- The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades;
- The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly
stable C6 product;
all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction').
Happy New Year to all to everyone.
Well said! I've been waiting since the C6.6 "upgrade" to get a kernel with the reported patch that fixes the web cam incompatibility that was introduced with the new C6.6 kernel. I would change distributions in a minute if there was a better choice.
Between Linuxes there hardly will be better choice. It all boils down to which way Linux kernel already goes, and that didn't happen just yesterday. As far as other choices are concerned... (and I stop right here knowing I already developed allergy in some of you here whom I respect ;-)
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 29/12/14 01:52, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
.............. The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades.
What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version.
- The dramatic upheaval in C7;
- The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades;
- The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly
stable C6 product;
all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction').
Happy New Year to all to everyone.
The stability comes _within_ a product release. I don't think it's realistic to expect el7 to be the same as el6 or el5, otherwsie what's the point of the newer releases. You have 7 years of support / consistency (now 10 years). What business model do you have that you can't build around a product guaranteed to be consistent/supported for the next 10 years?
Am 29.12.2014 um 10:22 schrieb Ned Slider ned@unixmail.co.uk:
On 29/12/14 01:52, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
.............. The design changes are done in Fedora, by people who apparently never liked unix or consistency, not the people using Red Hat or CentOS that already have things working that they would like to keep working the same way across upgrades.
What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product. Since Enterprise Linux is supposed NOT to be Windoze, consistency is very important especially for the paying (R.H.) customers. It is also much appreciated by its devout fans and the hardworking guardians of the Centos cloned version.
- The dramatic upheaval in C7;
- The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades;
- The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly
stable C6 product;
all seem to suggest Upstream lacks a clear, reliable and dependable strategic policy (or what some call a 'sense of direction').
Happy New Year to all to everyone.
The stability comes _within_ a product release. I don't think it's realistic to expect el7 to be the same as el6 or el5, otherwsie what's the point of the newer releases. You have 7 years of support / consistency (now 10 years). What business model do you have that you can't build around a product guaranteed to be consistent/supported for the next 10 years?
Effective, 6 1/2 years - just to be precise not pedantic, for the last 3 1/2 years following applies [1]:
"Production 3 Phase: During the Production 3 Phase, Critical impact Security Advisories (RHSAs) and selected Urgent Priority Bug Fix Advisories (RHBAs) may be released as they become available. Other errata advisories may be delivered as appropriate."
"may be" is here important - as the past shows up that moderate updates were not released anymore.
[1] https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Production_3_Phase
-- LF
On 12/28/2014 08:52 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 10:30 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
.............. The design changes are done in Fedora, .
What type of large commercial organisation lets undisciplined people make adverse changes detrimental to the reputation and ultimate success of its 'stable' commercial product.
Any organization using open source. More specifically, any organization that uses the Linux Kernel. Or have you never read the linux kernel mailing list (LKML)? Open source by its very nature is somewhat 'undisciplined' in that any particular project's discipline (or, to use a fifty-dollar word, 'governance') is entirely self-imposed by the project members, and some projects have 'better' discipline/governance than others. This is the cost of decentralized development of core pieces of the operating system; it is an acceptable cost for my uses. And I intentionally put 'better' in quotes because what is 'better' is entirely subjective.
- The dramatic upheaval in C7;
Had EL7 been a straight clone of Fedora 20 it would/could have been much worse. Try out F20 for a while to see the differences.
- The claimed life-span of C5 truncated by no more normal upgrades;
Define 'normal' upgrades. Are you talking about the 'quarterly' updates that masquerade as 'point' releases? (Yeah, yeah, I know they're not strictly quarterly, but go read some of the early EL literature......)
- The changes introduced in C6.6, during the lifetime of an allegedly
stable C6 product;
The Update 6 releases seem from my view to have been substantial upheavals and opportunities to get somewhat major things pushed in. EL5 update 6 was no exception, and, as I recall, EL4 update 6 wasn't, either, but that's been a while, so I may not be remembering it completely; and I don't remember much of anything about the 3u5 to 3u6 transition. At least during this cycle Red Hat staggered the releases unlike the triple-threat posed last major release cycle, where 4u10, 5u6, and 6GA all 'hit' within weeks of each other.
Red Hat is walking a tightrope here, and, honestly, I think they are doing a fantastic job in what they do, given the fact that they are not going to please all of their users any particular time. The users' requirements are just too varied, and many of those requirements are mutually exclusive. They're not going to please any one of the users all the time, either.
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 08:20 -0500, David Both wrote:
+1
It can be quite annoying when the X console is changed from one Virtual Console to another as happens with almost every release of CentOS and Fedora. I would really like it to be always consistent at Console 7. And the "real" system console should always be Console 1.
+1
I've been doing Centos for a long time and the update from 6.5->6.6 cost me much hours, crashes, lock up ... and final a complete re-install because of that and some code/commentary in an /etc/init* file that says X is a still expected on tty7 and changes could be put in a .override file if you want to change things.
Silly me believed I could actually get X to start back on tty7 just like "God" intended.
I am OK with change, but this seems to be fairly random change with know apparent advantage or benefit.
I'm not, but my choices are apparently limed to switching distros, with results from that unknown. The discussion about Gnome 3 got me thinking about it first. Since I started working intimately with UNIX back in '78, I'm wondering about the BSD stuff and the others guys have mentioned. When I visited my sister a couple years back I noticed her Apple stuff was based on BSD 4.0(?) IIRC - I *think* it was BSD. I jumped right into command line mode a was happy a a pig in ... "mud".
However, being I've successfully transitioned into a TDU (Typical Dumb User) since exiting the profession, I consider that sort of switch quite carefully before doing anything.
It is a big deal to keep it consistent. That way I know what to tell customers when they call and I have to talk them through a procedure over the phone.
I don't know if this would work in your situation, but what I've done is make a "do nothing user" on my system. I log into the first X session there and do the System->Log out->Switch user thingy, which gives me tty7, tty8 and tty9 for the three logins I normally use.
<snip>
Bill
-
Always Learning -
Andreas Benzler -
Bill Maltby (C4B) -
David Both -
Lamar Owen -
Leon Fauster -
Les Mikesell -
Mark LaPierre -
Ned Slider -
Valeri Galtsev