On Friday 27 March 2009 18:04:11 Gerry Reno wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > I'm not concerned about it either. I don't run X directly on my > > servers, so the whole VM thing is a little bit of hogwash to me. ssh > > exported X works just fine for when I need something graphical, > > otherwise it's CLI. > > > > What exactly is your use case that you need a local functioning X on all > > these systems in your data center and virtual hosts? > > X servers are everywhere these days. Even on some of our servers and > VM's. We have servers hosting test VM's for users and we have X running > so that we can bring up the graphical virtualization tools so we can run > the VM's console and see what is happening with a particular users VM X > server. > I have to agree with Jesse on this. It sounds like you are getting a lot more exercise than a SysAdmin should. ;-) I am surprised that you have so many systems on which this is apparently a problem and yet you do not do provisioning where a simple config change would resolve it. Even without provisioning for installs, any config provisioning would easily handle this. I am also a SysAdmin, and I do (very rarely) use this key combination, but certainly not often enough to see this as a big deal. There are soooo many ways around this change and around the need for the key combination in the first place. I wish you luck in your upstream fight. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64@xxxxxxxxx http://n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ All messages cryptographically signed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
