[GRLUG] gui on a server

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 21:09 -0400, Mike Williams wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 05:24 PM, John-Thomas Richards wrote:
> > Debian runs multi-user at runlevel 2, regardless. RedHat and its 
> > derivatives used runlevel 5 for multi-user with GUI (via a display 
> > manager) and runlevel 2 for multi-user console. I've never understood 
> > that distinction. I'm no sysadmin but I'm not sure how distinguishing 
> > between the two (above) is practical. Do businesses sometimes run 
> > multi-user console but later need to switch to multi-user GUI? Debian 
> > just seems (to me) to be cleaner. Functionally (not merely 
> > theoretically) it seems that a system needs runlevels 1, 2, and 6.
> If I remember right, the official runlevel definitions are as follows.

There are "official" definitons!! :)  I thought we were talking about
UNIX?

> 0: system is shutting down.
> 1: single user mode.
> 2: full multiuser, but no network
> 3: full multiuser  with network
> 4: usually not used. 
> 5: full X server, network, multiuser, and everything. The default for 
> workstations.
> 6: System is rebooting

Sounds right except that 5 does not imply a "full X server".  5 adds a
display manager which *may* start a display or may advertise XDMCP or
both.

On a modern distro /etc/sysconfig/displaymanager setting
DISPLAYMANAGER_STARTS_XSERVER="no" gives you XDMCP only [obviously the
default is "yes"].  Back in the days of xdm there was some file you
modified or deleted, but I can't remember which one that was either.

> Maybe what you want in this case is, in effect, the rare runlevel 4. 
> There is nothing on the machine's native screen but the loal consoles, 
> and it doesn't even need an accelerated graphics card, but you can run X 
> apps, including a login manager remotely on any X server that properly 
> sets $DISPLAY. I played with this years ago on an underpowered house 
> server and did get it to work, but I can't remember how. I remember that 
> setting the right things in the right places was more difficult than it 
> should have been!

I've run XDMCP oriented networks, it was amazing how little server
horsepower was required.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20120407/f447a8b6/attachment.pgp>