Re: vlock from x11?
hi, thanks a lot. it's a nice idea and it works. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > for completeness: > > i ended up finding out that from x11, openvt works better than chvt. > something like the following works ok (could use some improvement, but > the situation has improved greatly): > > /usr/bin/openvt -s -- /usr/bin/vlock -a > > [ there should be no more from me on this thread ;-) ] > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- bye, alias m.nine.six.
Re: vlock from x11?
hi, thanks a lot. it's a nice idea and it works. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > for completeness: > > i ended up finding out that from x11, openvt works better than chvt. > something like the following works ok (could use some improvement, but > the situation has improved greatly): > > /usr/bin/openvt -s -- /usr/bin/vlock -a > > [ there should be no more from me on this thread ;-) ] > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- bye, alias m.nine.six. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vlock from x11?
Russell Coker wrote: > Why not use xdm? It works for me. Yeah, nothing seriously wrong with xdm -- I just think it's overkill. > On my Thinkpad I have xdm (or more specifically kdm) running > displays on vt5 and vt6 so if I am logged in I can lock the screen, > change to the other vt, and let someone play with my machine. Now that's serious overkill -- you always have two Xservers running, wasting RAM when you're not using the second. I created a little script that searches through /tmp, finds the first unused DISPLAY, and starts an Xserver there. So I can quickly and easily run as many Xservers as I want, for as many users as I want, but don't need to have any extras running. Still, your approach is the more, er, conventional one, and is probably good enough for less hackish people. :-) > For when the X server dies I have the SAK enabled in the kernel. Definitely a good plan. :-) Anyway, this is not very laptop-related any more (was it ever?) so I'm going to drop the thread now. cheers -- Chris Waters, Systems Engineer, Critical Path, Inc. phone: 1(415) 344-5518 or 1(415) 254-5913 (mobile) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vlock from x11?
Russell Coker wrote: > Why not use xdm? It works for me. Yeah, nothing seriously wrong with xdm -- I just think it's overkill. > On my Thinkpad I have xdm (or more specifically kdm) running > displays on vt5 and vt6 so if I am logged in I can lock the screen, > change to the other vt, and let someone play with my machine. Now that's serious overkill -- you always have two Xservers running, wasting RAM when you're not using the second. I created a little script that searches through /tmp, finds the first unused DISPLAY, and starts an Xserver there. So I can quickly and easily run as many Xservers as I want, for as many users as I want, but don't need to have any extras running. Still, your approach is the more, er, conventional one, and is probably good enough for less hackish people. :-) > For when the X server dies I have the SAK enabled in the kernel. Definitely a good plan. :-) Anyway, this is not very laptop-related any more (was it ever?) so I'm going to drop the thread now. cheers -- Chris Waters, Systems Engineer, Critical Path, Inc. phone: 1(415) 344-5518 or 1(415) 254-5913 (mobile) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vlock from x11?
> ; [snip]. . . . What I do is start X with the > ; command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X > ; (or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt, > ; rather than a nice shell prompt. > ; > ; Your approach sounds reasonable too -- and to make it work the way you > ; described, I'd try reserving a VT, and using chvt+vlock in a script. > ; But I can't guarantee that'll work, so some testing might be in order. > ; :-) I have used chvt under a script within X (for a different reason, to do happy suspends) and it works fairly nicely. As for timed launch, I think xscreensaver supports doing the timeout for just about any "normal" app, so once you have it tuned to do it the way you like, you could set it going under xscreensaver. Seems to me I'd only use it by deliberate launch though. * Heather Stern * star@ many places...
Re: vlock from x11?
> ; [snip]. . . . What I do is start X with the > ; command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X > ; (or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt, > ; rather than a nice shell prompt. > ; > ; Your approach sounds reasonable too -- and to make it work the way you > ; described, I'd try reserving a VT, and using chvt+vlock in a script. > ; But I can't guarantee that'll work, so some testing might be in order. > ; :-) I have used chvt under a script within X (for a different reason, to do happy suspends) and it works fairly nicely. As for timed launch, I think xscreensaver supports doing the timeout for just about any "normal" app, so once you have it tuned to do it the way you like, you could set it going under xscreensaver. Seems to me I'd only use it by deliberate launch though. * Heather Stern * star@ many places... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vlock from x11?
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Chris Waters wrote: >> the reason i'm not using x-based screensavers is that i'm unwilling to >> disable the ctrl-alt-bs sequence used to stop the x server -- the >> sequence is too useful when i'm diagnosing problems. that leaves me >> w/ using things like vlock because the x-based screensavers appear to >> be pointless w/ the ctrl-alt-bs sequence enabled (has this changed? >> or is my understanding off?). > >Anyone who has access to your console can probably get in if they're >sufficiently determined (think boot floppy). But I agree that there's >no reason to make it easy for them. What I do is start X with the >command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X >(or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt, >rather than a nice shell prompt. Why not use xdm? It works for me. On my Thinkpad I have xdm (or more specifically kdm) running displays on vt5 and vt6 so if I am logged in I can lock the screen, change to the other vt, and let someone play with my machine. So I use the regular X screen blanker with a timeout... For when the X server dies I have the SAK enabled in the kernel. CTRL-ALT-BS isn't good enough, if the X server gets properly wedged then it won't accept keyboard input. Russell Coker
Re: vlock from x11?
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Chris Waters wrote: >> the reason i'm not using x-based screensavers is that i'm unwilling to >> disable the ctrl-alt-bs sequence used to stop the x server -- the >> sequence is too useful when i'm diagnosing problems. that leaves me >> w/ using things like vlock because the x-based screensavers appear to >> be pointless w/ the ctrl-alt-bs sequence enabled (has this changed? >> or is my understanding off?). > >Anyone who has access to your console can probably get in if they're >sufficiently determined (think boot floppy). But I agree that there's >no reason to make it easy for them. What I do is start X with the >command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X >(or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt, >rather than a nice shell prompt. Why not use xdm? It works for me. On my Thinkpad I have xdm (or more specifically kdm) running displays on vt5 and vt6 so if I am logged in I can lock the screen, change to the other vt, and let someone play with my machine. So I use the regular X screen blanker with a timeout... For when the X server dies I have the SAK enabled in the kernel. CTRL-ALT-BS isn't good enough, if the X server gets properly wedged then it won't accept keyboard input. Russell Coker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vlock from x11?
How about adding the Dont*'s to your XF86Config Section "ServerFlags" DontZap DontZoom EndSection [snip] ; ; Anyone who has access to your console can probably get in if they're ; sufficiently determined (think boot floppy). But I agree that there's ; no reason to make it easy for them. What I do is start X with the ; command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X ; (or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt, ; rather than a nice shell prompt. ; ; Your approach sounds reasonable too -- and to make it work the way you ; described, I'd try reserving a VT, and using chvt+vlock in a script. ; But I can't guarantee that'll work, so some testing might be in order. ; :-)
Re: vlock from x11?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > the reason i'm not using x-based screensavers is that i'm unwilling to > disable the ctrl-alt-bs sequence used to stop the x server -- the > sequence is too useful when i'm diagnosing problems. that leaves me > w/ using things like vlock because the x-based screensavers appear to > be pointless w/ the ctrl-alt-bs sequence enabled (has this changed? > or is my understanding off?). Anyone who has access to your console can probably get in if they're sufficiently determined (think boot floppy). But I agree that there's no reason to make it easy for them. What I do is start X with the command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X (or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt, rather than a nice shell prompt. Your approach sounds reasonable too -- and to make it work the way you described, I'd try reserving a VT, and using chvt+vlock in a script. But I can't guarantee that'll work, so some testing might be in order. :-) I don't know of any way to trigger that off of an inactivity timeout though... cheers -- Chris Waters, Systems Engineer, Critical Path, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vlock from x11?
How about adding the Dont*'s to your XF86Config Section "ServerFlags" DontZap DontZoom EndSection [snip] ; ; Anyone who has access to your console can probably get in if they're ; sufficiently determined (think boot floppy). But I agree that there's ; no reason to make it easy for them. What I do is start X with the ; command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X ; (or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt, ; rather than a nice shell prompt. ; ; Your approach sounds reasonable too -- and to make it work the way you ; described, I'd try reserving a VT, and using chvt+vlock in a script. ; But I can't guarantee that'll work, so some testing might be in order. ; :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vlock from x11?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > the reason i'm not using x-based screensavers is that i'm unwilling to > disable the ctrl-alt-bs sequence used to stop the x server -- the > sequence is too useful when i'm diagnosing problems. that leaves me > w/ using things like vlock because the x-based screensavers appear to > be pointless w/ the ctrl-alt-bs sequence enabled (has this changed? > or is my understanding off?). Anyone who has access to your console can probably get in if they're sufficiently determined (think boot floppy). But I agree that there's no reason to make it easy for them. What I do is start X with the command "startx&exit". This means that even if someone *does* kill X (or tries to suspend it), they'll still be faced with a login prompt, rather than a nice shell prompt. Your approach sounds reasonable too -- and to make it work the way you described, I'd try reserving a VT, and using chvt+vlock in a script. But I can't guarantee that'll work, so some testing might be in order. :-) I don't know of any way to trigger that off of an inactivity timeout though... cheers -- Chris Waters, Systems Engineer, Critical Path, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
