Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the '10.4: Disable Keyboard Setup Assistant for KVM users' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
10.4: Disable Keyboard Setup Assistant for KVM users
Authored by: graphex on May 03, '05 09:32:35PM

I made the change noted in the hint and it worked, but securityd and DiskManagementTool started crashing when mail tried to login. Somehow it was related to the missing keyboard setup assistant, as they went back to working normally after I changed the name back to normal.

Once securityd is gone, you're pretty much screwed as far as changing things back, since you can't authenticate as ANYONE anymore. Luckily, there was some time after restart but before securityd crashed where I could undo this change.

Also note that the system log reports that something has gone wrong:


May  3 19:08:22 localhost kernel[0]: USBF:	20.226	IOUSBHIDDriver[0x344db00]::start - super::start returned false!
May  3 19:08:22 localhost kernel[0]: USBF:	20.226	IOUSBHIDDriver[0x344db00]::start - aborting startup

Hopefully a less buggy fix for the stupid Keyboard Setup Assistant issue will present itself. It is very, very annoying.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Disable Keyboard Setup Assistant for KVM users
Authored by: displaced on May 04, '05 09:34:23AM

That sounds nasty -- glad you managed to undo the damage!

I've not had such problems since making the change. I wonder what combination of factors is tripping up your machine. For reference, I've had no issues with crashing background processes, Mail logins, user authentication or switching at all.

The only side effect for me is the following line appearing in the console log whenever an attempt to launch the Assistant would be made:

May  4 14:30:09 Clementine loginwindow[65]: launchKeyboardSetupAssistant FSPathMakeRef failed with -43

... which looks like a pretty reasonable way of saying "hey, I can't find that!"




[ Reply to This | # ]