F11: xorg decision to disable Ctrl-Alt-Backspace

[Giancarlo Niccolai]

Anders Rayner-Karlsson wrote:
> * Giancarlo Niccolai <gc at falconpl.org> [20090331 12:20]:
>   
>> it may be educated enough to try it. But it is not like that an X  
>> session hang so bad that you have to ctrl-alt-bs it will allow you to  
>> CAF1-6 at all, or will let you to do anything meaningful with it (i.e.  
>> bash may not be able to get the resources to start). When you HAVE to  
>> CABs, it's because you CAN'T CAF1-6.
>>
>> (There was my two cents, so don't expect me to join in this convo; I  
>> just wanted to correct your assumption that you may CAF1-6 away a  
>> situation in which you have to CABs, which is wrong, as another poster  
>> pointed out).
>>     
>
> IIRC, and I believe that was pointed out in this thread as well, is
> that these keypresses are handled in the same way by the same part of
> the X server. If C-A-Bs works, so will C-A-F2 to drop you at a vc.
>   
Dropping you to a VC and having a system stable enough to be able to do 
anything useful in that VC (including launching a shell) are two 
different matters.
> Through past experience, I have never found an instance (since moving
> from XFree86 to Xorg) where the Xserver was wedged in a way that
> switching to a vc did not work, but C-A-Bs did. I have seen plenty of
> X lockups (Xorg intel driver issues in F10) in the last few months and
> not a single one of those were resolvable by C-A-Bs.
>   
I had. As a programmer, I often try bleeding-edge software, and often 
contribute in making it more stable.

As I said, I am not against turning off a feature by default, even if 
vital for someone (i.e. for me that, as a programmer,... etc). I am 
against turning off a vital feature that the people that need it (and 
need it bad) will discover being turned off exactly when they need it 
the most. If not for anything else, if not for the "millions" (really) 
boxes one should spread around during install to explain policy changes, 
THIS is one for sure.

GN.