NIS passwords, X servers, and processor utilization
NIS passwords, X servers, and processor utilization
- Subject: NIS passwords, X servers, and processor utilization
- From: Markian Hlynka <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:16:05 -0700
I'm not sure how on-topic this is, so I'll go by the consensus. But, it
seems to me that if you're using X, you a good number of people are
doing so in order to inter-operate with Unix. My questions:
I've recently heard that 10.2 broke NIS password database support. Is
this correct? Does anyone know the status, and if I should even bother
filing a bug report?
Has anyone experimented with having a mac running as an X server? that
is, a machine that asks another for an X session, but doesn't run a
window manager locally on its own? This would be a useful feature to
have, IMHO. I used to log into machines and use "X -query -once
hostname" to get an X session from another machine. It would be nice if
I had the option, on my mac, to log into the console and do this if I
didn't want aqua running (For eg, if I have to use a bunch of X apps in
isolation, there's no need to run aqua, and I'll get better processor
utilization if it's not running.) It would also make our lab admins
happy if the Macs in the lab could have a login button that let "X" run
by itself. This would up the usage of our macs, and result in the
department buying more.
The problem is many people say "I can't us that, I use X, and I'd have
to learn new stuff to use that Mac". If, on the other hand, the mac
could be a mac _OR_ and Xserver, this would be cool, and we'd only need
one type of machine. (The current arrangement means far far fewer macs,)
My comment about doing it to get better processor usage reminds me:
does anyone know why I can't get better processor utilization on OS X?
on linux, if I'm running a process (regardless of window manager) and
nothing else is going on, I can get 100%, or at worst 98% or 99% of the
processor. In OS X, 85 % is lucky. _That's the reason why I'd want to
run without aqua: for performance. But, based on my tests with the
console, I'm not necessarily convinced that would matter. Any comments?
Finally, I _AM aware that apple's current version of X11 won't run from
the console, because it requires quartz. But, is that the case if a
different window-manager is running? Or is it also because X11.app is
rootless, and without aqua there is no, er... "root"?
Thanks,
Markian
_______________________________________________
x11-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/x11-users
X11 for Mac OS X FAQ: http://developer.apple.com/qa/qa2001/qa1232.html
Report issues, request features, feedback: http://developer.apple.com/bugreporter
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.