[LightDM] Fwd: Is it time to re-factor yet :^)

[j. apple muncy]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: j. apple muncy *********************8
Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [LightDM] Is it time to re-factor yet :^)
To: David Edmundson ****************8




On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, David Edmundson ***************
 wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, j. apple muncy <j.apple.muncy at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Or how to avoid the whirlwind.
>>
>> Greetings everyone.
>>
>> I observe the coding of lighdm is well under way and I'm thinking the
>> pressure to meet the releases of 11.11 is probably going to build without
>> bounds.
>>
>> Is there time now to consider the inclusion of some of the more offbeat
>> use cases?
>> 1: Headless(no monitor, keyboard, or monitor)
>> 2: True headless(no video card) but Xvfb.
>> 3: No X but only XDMCP.
>>
>
>
>> 4: No Dbus.
>>
>
> When would "no dbus" be a real use case?
>
That would be for fail-safe mode when D-bus is broken. Not so very long ago
I loaded up a make shift machine with 10.10 but about thitry seconds into a
session it would dump back to the gdm screen. As nearly as I could
determine, D-bus was not working as advertised.
But my point is that if LightDM is going to be the default DM, care must be
taken to handle lots of different use cases.

>
>
>> 5: No X until after login.
>>
>
> If you've already logged in, you don't need a login prompt for anything.
> What would LightDM (or GDM/KDM/XDM) gain a user over simply typing startx
> themselves? They're clearly the sort of user that doesn't like doing things
> the easy way, maybe this software simply isn't for them.
>
>
IMHO down thought the years of Linux installs, the single most difficult
gotcha is when X fails to start. Sure, LightDM could just do the traditional
thing and bailout to getty.
But the real use case I'm thinking of is on a machine that the  sysop does
not want to waste resources of the machine by running X until X is needed.

> I'm thinking they could actually help point out some ways to modularise and
>> simplify.
>> People are going to come out of the woodwork asking for these cases to
>> work and at minimal overhead.
>>
>>
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/lightdm
>>
>> is empty and I took me some time to find:
>>
>> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/LightDM/?Design<http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/LightDM/Design>
>>
>>
>> I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand these use cases.
>
No problem mon.
I'm struggling with what I read in the Design page. So having thought about
it some more, it is seems to me LightDM wants to do the work of a "session
manager" as opposed starting a session manager.
I look forward to Robert's return from UDS and the hot info about what is
expected of LightDM for 11.10.



>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LightDM mailing list
>> LightDM at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/lightdm
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/lightdm/attachments/20110518/10b77216/attachment.htm>