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 at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- > > > ********************************************************* > David P. Both, RHCE > Millennium Technology Consulting LLC > Raleigh, NC, USA > 919-389-8678 > > dboth at 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 at 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. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
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
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.