pty's

lilsirecho · 2004-03-14 07:59:49

Need help to satisfy XF86 request for pty's so that startx will actually startx.

Startx result:

xterm: Error 32 err no.2....not enough pty's

Need method to create pty"s.

A lone(single) pty is listed in /Dev....however there are ptya0 through ptya9 listed also.

What form of the pty is requested by XF86. :?:

This problem occurs in kernel 2.6.4-1 newly built.

Xentac · 2004-03-14 08:39:01

You need the devpts line in /etc/fstab.

none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0

That error is all over the forum, searching for it probably would have found it for you.

scottro · 2004-03-14 14:58:57

Maybe it should be added to the faq?

lilsirecho · 2004-03-14 16:28:37

Xentac;

Thanks for the info ... it solved the difficulty...spent much time searching googlelinux but only reference to adding pty's did not work with arch..

Strange that the fix refers to ....pts...and not to ...pty.

I would ignore the pts infavor of pty in searches because details have to be "right" in order that the logic accepts them.

A FAQ suggested in previous post would seem to be appropo.

Many thanks....Problem solved!!

contrasutra · 2004-03-14 19:07:01

It was in the Newsletter FAQ, along with the front page news. If you guys didn't find the answer, you didn't look, because it was posted in like 10 locations.

Xentac · 2004-03-14 20:09:06

Usually searching for the error message will find you results, because people post the error message when looking for the problem.

lilsirecho · 2004-03-14 20:22:49

Most advice I receive is ....googlelinux....

Google itself has problems with search algorithms---parallel that with the search "algorithm" used by the novice...esp. if one is looking for pty...not pts.

I will endeavor to change my ways!!!!

Search for; When is a zero always equal to a one? It isn't in the forum nor google!!!

It carries a message, however, in the correct answer!

jlowell · 2004-03-15 00:32:25

One wonders if, six or seven posts later, it might have been more efficacious simply to provide the answer without the accompanying lecture.

jlowell

scottro · 2004-03-15 01:43:29

The original question was answered in the first reply.

As Arch gets more popular, the information grows and probably becomes a bit harder to find, especially for the newcomer.

jlowell · 2004-03-15 03:58:58

My point entirely, Scottro. It's enough simply to answer the question as it's posed and to leave what are frequently presumptuous judgments and lectures about searching the forum out of it. To the best of my knowledge, no one's yet been appointed critic-at-large here.

jlowell

scottro · 2004-03-15 05:16:25

This is a tough one. I see your point, let's just answer the question.

However, I didn't think that Xentac's answer was overly harsh.
Newcomers often don't realize things that we take for granted, (looking at faqs, checking docs, doing a search on the forums). Therefore, explaining to them that they should do that first isn't a bad thing. (In my opinion--indeed, this whole post is my opinion)

Arch is getting more and more popular so more newcomers are joining. It's not as if he was told "RTFM you 1U5r."

So, I think I'm going to disagree with you on this one. While I see the validity of your point, I don't think Xentac's answer was abusive, and I do think it's good to point out to a newcomer that they can often find the answer with a bit of searching.

The original poster also commented that he did search google without success.

Heh, I'm too sleepy, I'm not even sure which side I'm arguing for now.

dp · 2004-03-15 05:43:23

scottro wrote:

Heh, I'm too sleepy, I'm not even sure which side I'm arguing for now.

that's the best way arguing: the both sides!

Xentac · 2004-03-15 06:44:51

I hereby swear not to answer any questions that could be easily searched for, so as not to make presumptuous judgments or lectures.

sarah31 · 2004-03-15 06:55:00

funny how someone can catch shit for answering the question. it seems to me that xentac answered the question then caught shit for advising someone to search the forum or webpage for the proper answer.

should the fstab line be in the faqs ... sure and through the wiki anyone can add it.

could jlowell have shut his yap and stop bitching about the people who ARE helping but get tired of answering the same question over and over again. not to mention he fails to provide an answer himself in the procees so basically he just comes off as a a troll.

am i trolling? i suppose but i was alerted by someone else about this thread as i was not paying attention to the forum the last few days.

anyway, my two cents.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-03-14 07:59:49

pty's

#2 2004-03-14 08:39:01

Re: pty's

#3 2004-03-14 14:58:57

Re: pty's

#4 2004-03-14 16:28:37

Re: pty's

#5 2004-03-14 19:07:01

Re: pty's

#6 2004-03-14 20:09:06

Re: pty's

#7 2004-03-14 20:22:49

Re: pty's

#8 2004-03-15 00:32:25

Re: pty's

#9 2004-03-15 01:43:29

Re: pty's

#10 2004-03-15 03:58:58

Re: pty's

#11 2004-03-15 05:16:25

Re: pty's

#12 2004-03-15 05:43:23

Re: pty's

#13 2004-03-15 06:44:51

Re: pty's

#14 2004-03-15 06:55:00

Re: pty's

Board footer