2009/2/10 Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 11:43 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 11:33 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > [...] > >> > In this kind of situation it would be nice to have an unblockable >> > attention key, like SysRq but not so low-level. Something that would >> > simply force the system into VT2 for example, and didn't depend on X >> > working. >> >> You can't do that, really. Getting to vt2 requires getting X to let go >> of the hardware, because the vt subsystem is a raging pile of trash that >> we would be _far_ better off just deleting. Read that again: X has to >> voluntarily relinquish the hardware. If it isn't responding to c-a-bs, >> it certainly isn't going to respond to any other requests. > > OK. > >> But nooooo. Gotta keep having VTs so we can recover when X screws up. >> I mean, it's the unix way. Which apparently means designing failure in >> from the start, and calling it a feature. >> >> This is a bad design. The panic button doesn't make it better, it just >> makes it okay to be even worse than the design requires. Take the >> training wheels off already. > > Do you have an alternative suggestion? I think this is the intention with removing c-a-d. If you remove the quick fix to a crashing app, people are more likely to try and find a way of fixing the crashing app. No? -- Christopher Brown -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
