From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 16 16:02:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE22037B401 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 16:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBDA43FA3 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 16:02:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.147.188.198]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with ESMTP id <2003051623025605100bvc29e>; Fri, 16 May 2003 23:02:56 +0000 Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.147.188.198] (may be forged)) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h4GN2tYt009494; Fri, 16 May 2003 19:02:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h4GN2pBc009491; Fri, 16 May 2003 19:02:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f Sender: lowell@be-well.no-ip.com To: peter.billam@pjb.com.au References: <200305162022.GAA03845@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 16 May 2003 19:02:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200305162022.GAA03845@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au> Message-ID: <44el2y336s.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.8 startx can't open /dev/io (or /dev/mem) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 23:02:58 -0000 peter.billam@pjb.com.au writes: > So maybe it's not an X thing, but a broad-scale mess-up of /dev ? > I tried repartioning and reinstalling, but that changed nothing :-( > > Surely other 4.8ers must have met this ? Any help gratefully received ... It's a securelevel thing. That's what securelevels are for. "man securelevel" to start with...