OpenBSD install has 1 not so logical part

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OpenBSD install has 1 not so logical part

someone
Hello,

Do you expect to run the X Window System? [yes] no
Do you want the X Window System to be started by xdm(1)? [no] no

Isn't this a contradiction? Or is it related to "machdep.allowaperture"? If
"machdep.allowaperture" isn't needed anymore, why is it still in the
install?

Many thanks,

bye!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD install has 1 not so logical part

Nick Holland
On 03/03/15 10:55, Thisis theone wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do you expect to run the X Window System? [yes] no
> Do you want the X Window System to be started by xdm(1)? [no] no
>
> Isn't this a contradiction? Or is it related to "machdep.allowaperture"? If
> "machdep.allowaperture" isn't needed anymore, why is it still in the
> install?

there's only one kind of hw out there, right?
oh wait.  :)

At the moment, on i386/amd64, only radeon, intel and vesa can avoid the
xf86(4) driver, there are a lot of other X servers and
non-Radeon/non-Intel hw that can be handled by something better than
vesa out there.

The first question sets things up so X *could* be used (if needed).  For
security reasons, this can't be changed after the system has fully
booted.  The second determines if X should be started at boot, but X can
certainly be started post-boot.  Two different things.

Nick.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD install has 1 not so logical part

someone
Thanks for clarifying!

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Nick Holland <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 03/03/15 10:55, Thisis theone wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Do you expect to run the X Window System? [yes] no
>> Do you want the X Window System to be started by xdm(1)? [no] no
>>
>> Isn't this a contradiction? Or is it related to "machdep.allowaperture"?
>> If
>> "machdep.allowaperture" isn't needed anymore, why is it still in the
>> install?
>>
>
> there's only one kind of hw out there, right?
> oh wait.  :)
>
> At the moment, on i386/amd64, only radeon, intel and vesa can avoid the
> xf86(4) driver, there are a lot of other X servers and non-Radeon/non-Intel
> hw that can be handled by something better than vesa out there.
>
> The first question sets things up so X *could* be used (if needed).  For
> security reasons, this can't be changed after the system has fully booted.
> The second determines if X should be started at boot, but X can certainly
> be started post-boot.  Two different things.
>
> Nick.