Are you using SuSE? I have seen your name on the SuSE list. This is a > problem w/ SuSE. They use a pretty funny way of calling WM's via > X/K/GDM. Check out your /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xinit or something like > that folder. In the Xsession file you will see how SuSE calls each > WM. Since, I don't know how to write scripts yet(although, I > understand somewhat how to read them), I don't know how to get it to > work. I have asked the question on

This started out as an RE to a message on the KDE-Alpha list. Then I realized that it has relevence to the SuSE list as well. I hope I don't offend by cross posting. the SuSE list w/ no reply. I > created another user and changed from init 3 to init 2 and set kde2 > as my default WM for this user.

As it turns out I had a script in the X11 directory called kde2 which was starting my kde2. It was overwritten by the RPMs. At least that's what I remember. I did so much over the weekend that it's all kind of a blur. One thing I didn't do was sleep, and that doesn't help the memory too much. I got so darn frustrated with SuSEconfig fighting with my QTDIR && KDEDIR that I yanked out the kde1 and qt1 stuff and symlinked qt to qt2 as well as kde to kde2. I've already vented on the SuSE list regarding the adhoc way X logins are handled. I actually came up with the term "GOTO hell" to describe this method of programming. The scripts are rafe with non-returning branch statements. This is not a *SuSE* or even a *Linux* issue, its a Un!x issue. I have a vision of handeling all configuratons in an LDAP database. In addition I believe this whole problem space lends itself to and OO solution. I am just becoming a professional programmer. I'm learning in Java. I don't know if Java would be a reasonable language to handle this. Perhaps I need to brush up on my C++. I only used it in college, and that was only one class. I took a few classes that required C, and I do like the language. I am working on a similar challenge on my day job. Currently the amount of scripting involved in the user logon process in Un!x is a dirty little secret. If this issue were cleaned up, and made more intelligibe by an industry accepted API, Un!x would probably grow a lot faster. What I'm thinking is that each application would either use an existing schema and create an instance of a predefined LDAP object to store its configuration, or if needed, the creator could deliver his own scheme extention with his product. Or if your name is Rachel it would be "her" own scheme. Each application would be able to have one entry per instance of installation. Or perhaps even a subtree. Boy does this sound familiar?.... Hey, I never said they were stupid, just that they are bullies. Anyhow, I just wanted to share this brainstorm. Take it FWIW. Steve -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/