Poll: Should Xorg change from using Ctrl+Alt+Backspace to something harder for users to press by accident?

Beso givemesugarr at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 06:34:51 PDT 2008

2008/9/24 Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>:
> Ben Gamari (FOSS) wrote:
>> My completely unprofessional opinion is that Jason brings up a really
>> good point here. Accidentally zapping Xorg can not only be extremely
>> frustrating, but it could be extremely confusing for a new user. This
>> being said, I also agree that any change that might be zapping
>> unreliable or even unduly difficult is unacceptable.However, I do
>> believe there is a better solution than what we have presently. Ctrl,
>> Alt, and Backspace are usually three of the largest keys on most
>> keyboards and I can personally attest to the ease of triggering on some
>> keyboards (try typing on a laptop balanced on your knee).
>> I think that requiring two presses of Ctrl-Alt-Backspace in close
>> succession would be perfect, so long as a tightly looping Xorg would
>> still register the event. Otherwise, perhaps adding Shift to the
>> Ctrl-Alt-Backspace combination would be a reasonable course of action so
>> long as it doesn't preclude any keyboards. If this too is not possible,
>> perhaps making use of the Pause/Break key in replacement of the
>> Backspace key would be workable.
> Ctrl-Alt-Break would be an improvement. Apart from anything else, that
> isn't bound to anytyhing in Emacs (which pre-dates X, BTW).
> For me, if X locks up to the extent that I can't quit the WM (and thus
> the session) normally, it is normally locked up to the extent that
> Ctrl-Alt-BS doesn't work either, and I need to resort to Alt-SysRq-K.
> Unfortunately, that tends to leave the video card in a state where
> consoles don't work, but I can at least use Ctrl-Alt-Del to trigger a
> clean reboot.

maybe could be interesting the adding of a function to remap the
keyboards instead of mapping an alternative. in  this way people that
continue to trigger it without really wanting to might change the key
sequence. remapping it would mean that 99% of xorg users need to go
and search for the new key sequence. so in my opinion the proposal is
stupid and would only trigger a users stand up against it. you don't
like it, then just assign another sequence (this should be the real
proposal) if already this has not been implemented.

dott. ing. beso

More information about the xorg mailing list