On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 10:36 +0000, Liam O'Toole wrote: > On 2015-04-04, Bill Maltby (C4B) > <centos4bill at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 11:12 +0100, Nux! wrote: > >> 100% with Digimer here. <snip> > > > >> All this energy should be put into contributing towards to the > >> project, testing, helping out community. > > > > Well, I used to agree. But when a bug report filed in December goes > > untouched entering April, which I don't recall happening prior to RH > > subsuming the project, it takes away impetus to ever file one again > > from lowly end users like me I think. > > > > http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=7972 > > Thanks for drawing my attention to that bug. I encountered it the other > day after switching from runlevel 5 to 3 (and back again) on a CentOS > 6.6 machine. > > The purpose of the runlevel switch was to restart gdm. Is there a better > way? ISTR an alt-backspace to restart X (been a _long_ time)? Of course with the apparent conflicts in underlying script/config (tries to spawn gettys on tty1-6 expecting X to start on tty7 but X starts on tty1) I don't know if this would work any better. My work around is a dummy user logged in on the first session (tty1) and use System->Log-out->Switch User from the panel to run real users on second and subsequent sessions for other users (all me). The subsequent sessions will start on tty7. Nice to know I'm not the only one that tries to use system facilities the way they were intended to work and has problems. Maybe if you touch the bug report so they know I'm not the only one the folks will look and elevate to RH bug just like they used to do? I was surprised that "crash" didn't get any attention. Bill