Hi,


how can i disable the start of the X server during boot time ?
I have found noting inside init.d or rc?.d

Frank
-- 

In article 1@ID-105697.news.uni-berlin.de, Frank Zimmer <frank.zimmer@euroscript.lu> writes:
>Hi,
>
>
>how can i disable the start of the X server during boot time ?
>I have found noting inside init.d or rc?.d
>
>Frank
>-- 
>

man dtconfig

/usr/dt/bin/dtconfig -d        (disable auto-start) 
/usr/dt/bin/dtconfig -kill     (kill dtlogin) 


---
                        \|/
                        o o
 ___________________oOO_(_)_OOo______________________________________
Florian Stiassny                        Florian.Stiassny@motorola.com

dtconfig -d
to start again
dtlogin -e
see man dtconfig

George

"Frank Zimmer" <frank.zimmer@euroscript.lu> wrote in message
news:bkrver$57vdm$1@ID-105697.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hi,
>
>
> how can i disable the start of the X server during boot time ?
> I have found noting inside init.d or rc?.d
>
> Frank
> --
>

                Hi all,

just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin



            Damian




"Frank Zimmer" <frank.zimmer@euroscript.lu> a �crit dans le message de news:
bkrver$57vdm$1@ID-105697.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hi,
>
>
> how can i disable the start of the X server during boot time ?
> I have found noting inside init.d or rc?.d
>
> Frank
> --
>

"Damian" <web.chris@nospam.free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3f741361$0$27034$626a54ce@news.free.fr...

> just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin

That's bad system administration (a hack).

The proper (and Sun recommended in general) way to disable /etc/rc?.d/
service(s) from starting is to do `mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin
/etc/rc2.d/.S99dtlogin`.

UNIX admin <tripivceta@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Damian" <web.chris@nospam.free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3f741361$0$27034$626a54ce@news.free.fr...

>> just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin

> That's bad system administration (a hack).

Why is this a hack?

> The proper (and Sun recommended in general) way to disable /etc/rc?.d/
> service(s) from starting is to do `mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin
> /etc/rc2.d/.S99dtlogin`.

Where is this style mentioned?

-- 
Darren Dunham                                           ddunham@taos.com
Unix System Administrator                    Taos - The SysAdmin Company
Got some Dr Pepper?                           San Francisco, CA bay area
         < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

UNIX admin wrote:
> The proper (and Sun recommended in general) way to disable /etc/rc?.d/
> service(s) from starting is to do `mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin
> /etc/rc2.d/.S99dtlogin`.

This seems like a bad idea b/c it hides the file and would make it
confusing for those who do an "ls" of the directory rather than
an "ls -a".

Personally, I usually add a "disable_" prefix.  Because it's
lowercase, all the disabled scripts show up at the end of the
list.

   - Logan

In article <3f787a5e$0$3654$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
 "UNIX admin" <tripivceta@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Damian" <web.chris@nospam.free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3f741361$0$27034$626a54ce@news.free.fr...
> 
> > just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin
> 
> That's bad system administration (a hack).
> 

Hack? Not really...

> The proper (and Sun recommended in general) way to disable /etc/rc?.d/
> service(s) from starting is to do `mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin
> /etc/rc2.d/.S99dtlogin`.
> 

Now that's a hack - the "accepted" way is to run dtconfig -d. But all 
that does is to S99dtlogin out of the /etc/rc*.d :).

-- 
Ken

Real address krgray*at*verizon*dot*net

In <3f787a5e$0$3654$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch> "UNIX admin" <tripivceta@hotmail.com> writes:
>"Damian" <web.chris@nospam.free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:3f741361$0$27034$626a54ce@news.free.fr...
>> just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin
>
>That's bad system administration (a hack).

for dtlogin you run dtconfig -d to disable, dtconfig -e to enable.
renaming the rc script is a poor solution to this particular problem
no matter which naming convention you choose.

"Darren Dunham" <ddunham@redwood.taos.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d__db.7656$WG7.3925@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> UNIX admin <tripivceta@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Damian" <web.chris@nospam.free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:3f741361$0$27034$626a54ce@news.free.fr...
>
> >> just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin
>
> > That's bad system administration (a hack).
>
> Why is this a hack?

Because the most elegant thing to do is to put the "." in front, and also,
it's uniform. But, you really should ask Sun about it. If they came up with
it, then I presume they knew what they were doing.

Personally, I have found of that this system works very well, especially
when you need to disable a whole bunch of services all at once via a for
loop in a shell. Perhaps that is why they chose it?

This is what I mean:

#!/bin/csh -f
foreach i ( 0 1 s S 2 3 )
    find /etc/rc${i}.d/ >! /tmp/rc${i}
end

Now you just take out the services you want to leave ON with your favorite
editor, the rest will be renamed; Then:

#!/bin/csh -f
foreach i ( `ls -1 /tmp/rc? )
    foreach j (`cat $i`)
        mv $j .$j                # Here's your answer why
    end
end

> > The proper (and Sun recommended in general) way to disable /etc/rc?.d/
> > service(s) from starting is to do `mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin
> > /etc/rc2.d/.S99dtlogin`.
>
> Where is this style mentioned?

When in doubt, what does a good Solaris admin do? Why look at
http://docs.sun.com of course!
Also, in the past I used to subscribe to sun-managers and suns-at-home
mailing lists. There are quite a few Sun/Solaris engineers on those. This is
what they recommended. I trust the makers of Solaris to know what they are
talking about; coupled with the above example, it shouldn't be too hard to
figure out why they're doing it that way.

Of course, you are free to choose whatever scheme you think is appropriate;
but shouldn't every good admin strive to "admin clean" and therefore be
closer to the goal of "having machines that admin themselves"?

And another thing, which I find important, a lot of you here come from the
trenches and have experince; but think of all the newbies, that also come
here. Shouldn't they learn to think in terms of "clean admin" right from the
beginning? It's all too easy to cook something up and get on your way. But
if you do it right, you help someone understand the concept behind it. It
may save them later.

"Ken Gray" <see-sig-for-address@nowhere.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:UD1eb.26721$FH3.24291@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> Now that's a hack - the "accepted" way is to run dtconfig -d. But all
> that does is to S99dtlogin out of the /etc/rc*.d :).

Agreed. But wouldn't you agree that only works for `dtlogin` or, should we
say, it's dtlogin specific. But you need a portable way to apply it
uniformly across all the services you want to disable, all at once.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, UNIX admin wrote:

>
> "Damian" <web.chris@nospam.free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3f741361$0$27034$626a54ce@news.free.fr...
>
> > just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin
>
> That's bad system administration (a hack).

Hum, I have seen many ways that people turn theese off, this is just one
style, otehrs include moving them to a subdir or dotting them like you
say, neither is really good, the best way to shut down services is to
unconfigure them properly.

If you just rename or change them, a patch might reinstate them later on.

> The proper (and Sun recommended in general) way to disable /etc/rc?.d/
> service(s) from starting is to do `mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin
> /etc/rc2.d/.S99dtlogin`.

There is to my knowledge no real "sun recommended way" to do that.
When it comes to the Xserver, why not just unconfigure its start?

i.e

/usr/dt/bin/dtconfig -d

/johan a

Mr. Johan Andersson wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, UNIX admin wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Damian" <web.chris@nospam.free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:3f741361$0$27034$626a54ce@news.free.fr...
>>
>>
>>>just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin
>>
>>That's bad system administration (a hack).
> 
> 
> Hum, I have seen many ways that people turn theese off, this is just one
> style, otehrs include moving them to a subdir or dotting them like you
> say, neither is really good, the best way to shut down services is to
> unconfigure them properly.


FWIW dtconfig -d just removes /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin

-- 
Tony

UNIX admin <tripivceta@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Where is this style mentioned?

> When in doubt, what does a good Solaris admin do? Why look at
> http://docs.sun.com of course!

That's exactly what I did, but my search was unsuccessful.  

Indeed the only references I could find in the administration collection
suggest that the standard task is to simply remove the link (presumably
on the idea that a copy remains in init.d and can be relinked).

This is what 'dtconfig -d' does, and it's how accounting is disabled in
this section.

http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/805-7229/6j6q8svg4?a=view

I was hoping that there was a section on general maintenance of startup
scripts that I've overlooked in my search.  If so, can you point it out
to me?

-- 
Darren Dunham                                           ddunham@taos.com
Unix System Administrator                    Taos - The SysAdmin Company
Got some Dr Pepper?                           San Francisco, CA bay area
         < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

"Damian" <web.chris@nospam.free.fr> wrote in message news:<3f741361$0$27034$626a54ce@news.free.fr>...
> Hi all,
> 
> just : mv /etc/rc2.d/S99dtlogin /etc/rc2.d/s99dtlogin
> 
> 
> 
>             Damian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Frank Zimmer" <frank.zimmer@euroscript.lu> a �crit dans le message de news:
> bkrver$57vdm$1@ID-105697.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > how can i disable the start of the X server during boot time ?
> > I have found noting inside init.d or rc?.d
> >
> > Frank
> > --
> >
Gurus,

dtconfig is a shell script which does exactly the same as Damian
mentioned above. Sometimes is good idea to get rid of a mythos! :-))

Use a set -x option and check it yourself if you don't believe it.
We ar talking about dtconfig -d and -e options only!

--Jules

In <3f795caa$0$3667$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch> "UNIX admin" <tripivceta@hotmail.com> writes:
>This is what I mean:
>
>#!/bin/csh -f
>foreach i ( 0 1 s S 2 3 )
>    find /etc/rc${i}.d/ >! /tmp/rc${i}
>end
....
>but shouldn't every good admin strive to "admin clean" and therefore be
>closer to the goal of "having machines that admin themselves"?

csh scripts and "admin clean" in the same post?  is that the "do as I say
and not as I do" form of proselytizing?

>here. Shouldn't they learn to think in terms of "clean admin" right from the
>beginning? It's all too easy to cook something up and get on your way.  But
>if you do it right, you help someone understand the concept behind it. It
>may save them later.

such as not using csh for any sort of scripting.  certainly not for
examples that those with less experience may see and use without
knowing any better.  do you see any csh scripts in /etc/init.d?

<ultrasparc3@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2003830.232055.14646@cable.prodigy.com...
> csh scripts and "admin clean" in the same post?  is that the "do as I say
> and not as I do" form of proselytizing?

Why not? If I were writing an /etc/init.d/ script, then I would most
certainly use `sh`, abosolutely and without a doubt; but I'm not, and
there's no need for Bourne shell in this particular case. Otherwise, there's
nothing wrong with using (t)csh in day to day system administration. `csh`
is included in Solaris by default anyway, and also in IRIX as well as HP-UX
and AIX. Which makes it pretty portable. What is unclean in that example?

> such as not using csh for any sort of scripting.  certainly not for
> examples that those with less experience may see and use without
> knowing any better.  do you see any csh scripts in /etc/init.d?

Of course not, and there is a reason for that, and the reason is that on
some systems, /usr may be on a separate partition which may not yet be
mounted, so statically linked /sbin/sh is used, and also because Sun's own
/etc/init.d/ scripts assume Bourne as the root's shell.

However, the example I gave above was not an /etc/init.d/ script. It was a
one time shot.

In <3f7aefe4$0$3673$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch> "UNIX admin" <tripivceta@hotmail.com> writes:
> What is unclean in that example?

using csh.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

<ultrasparc3@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200391.102055.19710@cable.prodigy.com...
> In <3f7aefe4$0$3673$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch> "UNIX admin"
<tripivceta@hotmail.com> writes:
> > What is unclean in that example?
>
> using csh.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

Well well, don't that look purty and knowledge-like. That FAQ even looks
like the author knows what he's talking about.
Luckily, it just so happens I know Bourne and Korn shells pretty good if not
better than (t)csh. And let me tell you, the author of that FAQ's full of
it. And BTW, most of my production scripts are written in Korn shell.

Yes, you have to do hoops with file descriptors in (t)csh. But it can be
done. You just have to know your shell. From your other shell. Or you could
just be a real admin and know all four of them.