Talk:Xinit

From ArchWiki

examples

there are 2 xinit examples which by themselves do not work as laid out, imo they should be removed and instead an optional note could be put (somewhere) that says something like:

xinit can be executed instead of startx if you know what options to use

otherwise it seems frustrating to recommend examples which will obviously fail --Ubone (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

xinit would not obviously fail if you specified the options in xserverrc. If you already have an X server started, you should also pass the :display_number option mentioned in the note after the first example. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
then replace or in #Usage with or if #xserverrc is configured: ? --Ubone (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should be worded in a way to make it clear why xserverrc is relevant, after all the right options can be specified on the command line as well. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

xinitrc.d scripts tip

Hmm as @Alad pointed out by the consideration of removal, I haven't thought about the .xinitrc actually being user content. I kind of thought about the way scripts are sourced as somewhat standard, even though there should really not be such expectation (even if it were kind of nice).

However I think it may be useful to somehow explain that the 'default implementation (on Arch?)' does source only executable files. Or I'm not sure. It just confused me that the x permission would be required, since the source command in bash does not require the file to be executable. Maybe there's a bigger reason behind this behaviour in the default .xinitrc - or maybe it shouldn't be like this, I'm not sure how other programs implement .d/ folders.

Feel free to delete this or improve on this, it was just a quick idea how to maybe save someone a while - but maybe it's too big of a headache and not that important.

I don't know how to rewrite what I added, again, feel free to moderate this.

Jsmetana (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am confused as to why it's giving you trouble with non-executable files. It should be using the . builtin, which does not require the file to be executable. As for the shebang, that is useful information but I'm not sure if it belongs here - there are surely other places in the wiki that have the user write scripts, without mentioning it. :) - CodingKoopa (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the article explicitly mention more security considerations?

Quoting an answer to Xephyr -ac dangerously?

This also applies to any X server, not just Xephyr

Which is why I find it relevant for this talk page.

I haven't looked at how different display managers are starting X. Since a display manager is not mandatory, and some users can manage a multi user machine, I wonder if the xinit article should not have more pointers to security considerations. Regid (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to write around startx conveniences

In view of the reversion https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Xinit&oldid=806008, I'm asking how that edit should've been worded. As it stands, the paragraph is confusing, having lead me to believe that startx sessions also need an ~/.xserverrc to properly configure the VT argument. (This uncertainty is also why I chose to use the out-of-date template, rather than rip out the paragraph altogether - it was intended, though perhaps not legible, as an RFC)

Perhaps adding a paragraph clarifying that this configuration is only necessary for xinit would be enough?

Gesh (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]