In case of && , the second process waits for the first process to finish with error code 0, before it starts.
In case of &, the second process starts without waiting for the first to finish. Meaning, by the time you are looking at the GUI, the exit command has already been executed.
Right. Yeah I didn’t engage my brain on the & initially as i thought it was just a typo. But that should work, seems others on the internet think the same.
I like ‘exec startx’, but really if someone has physical access, unless you are doing a lot of other security, you can’t be safe.
I tend to be lucky in that regard, as people around me who might get physical access, tend to not have Linux know-how, even if they think of pranking me.
I always ran
startx & exitto prevent someone from VT switching to a logged in console if my screen was locked :)VT?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_console
Joke’s on you. Ctrl-Alt-F1 Ctrl-z.
Right, that’s what the
& exitis supposed to prevent, since it’s already logged out.I think that is supposed to work on
startx && exitIf you switch to the VT with Ctrl-Alt-F1, and hit ctrl-z the process is suspended, but does not complete so it never gets to the exit.
At least that is my suspicion. I’m going to try it when I’m in front of a machine.
In case of
&&, the second process waits for the first process to finish with error code0, before it starts.In case of
&, the second process starts without waiting for the first to finish. Meaning, by the time you are looking at the GUI, theexitcommand has already been executed.Right. Yeah I didn’t engage my brain on the & initially as i thought it was just a typo. But that should work, seems others on the internet think the same.
I like ‘exec startx’, but really if someone has physical access, unless you are doing a lot of other security, you can’t be safe.
I tend to be lucky in that regard, as people around me who might get physical access, tend to not have Linux know-how, even if they think of pranking me.
Also, I lock my room.