disabling gdm - stability warning?
gnu joey
learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
need to just type 'startx'.
This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
until i get some answers from fellow console users.
I have used freebsd before and i always used startx. There was a problem
with permissions though e.g i could not alter configuration files in x,
unless i booted with gdm enabled in a config script. Apart from this,
there were no other problems i noticed.
In theory, there should be no problems cause the xorg server is totally
separate from any display manager like xdm,kdm,gdm. I suppose there could
be problems with xwrapper if x is started other than through a dm. But i
really need to know what the actual experience has been from people who
prefer the console - startx approach.
This is kind of paranoid - but i have already messed up my system before
by just trying stuff without reading / checking properly and i dont plan
on that happening again. So my question is simply has anyone experienced
problems - of any kind - from disabling gdm and booting to a console (then
starting x with startx)?
thanks for reading this.
Linonut
> I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
> learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
> need to just type 'startx'.
>
> This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
> for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
> gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
> disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
> system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
> until i get some answers from fellow console users.
You could do this:
$ su
# cd /etc/rc2.d
# mkdir disabled
# mv S30gdm disabled
Reboot to try it.
Actually, you don't need to be reboot except to verify. You can also
login to a virtual console and run
# /etc/init.d/gdm stop
If you don't like the result, login on one of the virtual consoles as
root and move the S30gm link back to /etc/rc2.d
--
I won't mention any names, because I don't want to get sun4's into
trouble... :-) -- Larry Wall in <11...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Hadron
> * gnu joey peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
>> learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
>> need to just type 'startx'.
>>
>> This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
>> for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
>> gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
>> disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
>> system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
>> until i get some answers from fellow console users.
>
> You could do this:
>
> $ su
> # cd /etc/rc2.d
> # mkdir disabled
> # mv S30gdm disabled
This is incredibly bad advice. Far better to remove the su and use sudo
on each line.
> # sudo cd /etc/rc2.d
> # sudo mkdir disabled
> # sudo mv S30gdm disabled
Of course sudo needs to be configured properly.
>
> Reboot to try it.
>
> Actually, you don't need to be reboot except to verify. You can also
> login to a virtual console and run
>
> # /etc/init.d/gdm stop
This does not prove his changes have worked.
>
> If you don't like the result, login on one of the virtual consoles as
> root and move the S30gm link back to /etc/rc2.d
He can use "update-rc.d -f service remove" or he can create the mirror K
link. Moving things completely out of the rc directories is not a good
idea.
by *far* the best way is to just rename the link and change the S for a
K.
--
"Hey, who needs mp3, wma, acc when we can have ogg?"
-- "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_...@gmail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Hadron
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
>> * gnu joey peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
>>> learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
>>> need to just type 'startx'.
>>>
>>> This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
>>> for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
>>> gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
>>> disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
>>> system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
>>> until i get some answers from fellow console users.
>>
>> You could do this:
>>
>> $ su
>> # cd /etc/rc2.d
>> # mkdir disabled
>> # mv S30gdm disabled
>
> This is incredibly bad advice. Far better to remove the su and use sudo
> on each line.
>
>> # sudo cd /etc/rc2.d
Sorry - no sudo required in line above.
Jimmy Johnson
When you get to the GDM login, Ctrl+Alt+F1 will put you into the text
mode (command line), Ctrl+Alt+F7 will put you back at the GDM login.
--
Jimmy Johnson
Debian Linux - Registered Linux User #380263 - "If Microsoft ever does
applications for Linux it means I've won.": Linus Torvalds
Magnate
> * gnu joey peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> I dont want to auto boot into x. i want to boot to the console cause i
>> learn more about the system that way - always. if i want x then i should
>> need to just type 'startx'.
>>
>> This is the set up i want. But, as everyone knows, the default setup is
>> for gdm to auto start. Today, i thought i would simply disable gdm. In
>> gnome app that configures some start-up services, i toggled the option to
>> disable gdm. However, i got a warning saying that this could 'change the
>> system behaviour in many ways'. This freaked me out, so i just left it
>> until i get some answers from fellow console users.
>
> You could do this:
>
> $ su
> # cd /etc/rc2.d
> # mkdir disabled
> # mv S30gdm disabled
But why is gdm set to start in runlevel 2?? I thought the whole point of
runlevels 2-5 was that you could choose whether to start different things in
them. RL1 is single-user, RL2 is multi-user console mode (what the OP seems
to want), RL5 is full X login via ?dm etc. (I never did have a use for RLs 3
and 4.)
This way all the OP would need to do it edit /etc/inittab and make sure he
boots into RL2 rather than 5. But sadly that useful feature seems to have
been messed up by the ubiquitous insistence on gdm in the distro he is
using.
CC
Mark Madsen
> But why is gdm set to start in runlevel 2?? I thought the whole point of
> runlevels 2-5 was that you could choose whether to start different
> things in them. RL1 is single-user, RL2 is multi-user console mode (what
> the OP seems to want), RL5 is full X login via ?dm etc. (I never did
> have a use for RLs 3 and 4.)
If this is a Debian system, it has a different set of runlevels than the
distros described here.
I'm reading this in alt.os.linux.debian BTW.
Dave Uhring
> This way all the OP would need to do it edit /etc/inittab....
Are you sure that /etc/inittab exists?
Linonut
> When you get to the GDM login, Ctrl+Alt+F1 will put you into the text
> mode (command line), Ctrl+Alt+F7 will put you back at the GDM login.
However, GDM will still be running.
--
Be warned that typing \fBkillall \fIname\fP may not have the desired
effect on non-Linux systems, especially when done by a privileged user.
-- From the killall manual page
gnu joey
suspected) there is a problem with the defaults that the auto setup
scripts installed.
When booting the system today, on starting gdm - i get a blanc screen. it
is a complete system freeze and it happens if i enable gdm with rcconf or
if i manually startx. the only way out is to pull the plug.
because of this i had no choice but to disable gdm through rcconf.
so my question is now, how can i fix the problem? why is gdm freezing my
system and how can i fix it. btw. the system i am referring to is Not the
system that iam running the new kernel on.
Jimmy Johnson
> * Jimmy Johnson peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> When you get to the GDM login, Ctrl+Alt+F1 will put you into the text
>> mode (command line), Ctrl+Alt+F7 will put you back at the GDM login.
> However, GDM will still be running.
To completely stop GDM, Ctrl+Alt+F1, login, su to root, "/etc/init.d/gdm
stop" and that will kill GDM, "/etc/init.d/gdm start" will get you back
to the loin screen.
--
Jimmy Johnson
Debian - Registered Linux User #380263 - "If Microsoft ever does
Hadron
GDM is still running eating potentially valuable resources.
sudo /etc/init.d/gdm stop
from your new full screen should fix that.
The correct way is the one I mentioned in an earlier post in this
thread.
--
- "Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out
some major $$$ to develop this thing. This is a great opportunity for
alternative operating systems to intercept the ball, and run it back for a
touchdown.": comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Anton Ertl
>Well, since i wrote this question - i tried to reboot and (like i
>suspected) there is a problem with the defaults that the auto setup
>scripts installed.
>
>When booting the system today, on starting gdm - i get a blanc screen. it
>is a complete system freeze and it happens if i enable gdm with rcconf or
>if i manually startx. the only way out is to pull the plug.
Sounds like your X server does not work, and kills keyboard input,
too, so you cannot switch to the console (you tried that, right?).
You'll have to play around with various options (drivers etc.) in
xorg.conf. For thius purpose it is helpful if you can log into the
machine from another nearby machine with ssh; this usually saves you
the hard-reset or plug-pulling step.
BTW, pulling the plug: No reset button?
>so my question is now, how can i fix the problem? why is gdm freezing my
>system and how can i fix it.
It's probably not gdm, it's X. Gdm would be easy to fix by selecting
another dm, e.g. xdm, or by using startx.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
Magnate
Me too. Can you point me to the Debian doc(s) on runlevels pls? I knew
Debian treated them differently - what I want to understand is why. I see
loss with no gain at the moment.
CC
Magnate
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:39:46 +0100, Magnate wrote:
>
>> This way all the OP would need to do it edit /etc/inittab....
>
> Are you sure that /etc/inittab exists?
It does in every version of Debian I've used, including Lenny which I'm
using now.
CC
Mark Madsen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runlevel plus onward links.
It's not that Debian specifically doesn't treat them differently, it's
just that there is a lot of freedom to choose what runlevels are used for.
Also (and this is not a personal attack) the Debian project has been
providing quality systems for a decade and a half. They've done enough
to earn respect that people should find out why they made the choices as
they did before applying criticism.
IMHE, I've run several Debian systems with or without display managers
and never once felt the absence of a runlevel....
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> never once felt the absence of a runlevel....
I generally agree, but I find the ability to change run levels "on the fly"
to be a *personal* convenience at times.
For example, init 3 on SuSE, then run the "sax" tool (X setup) to tweak the
X configuration (archive config, swap video monitors/cards, etc.). Then, an
init 5 after testing new config (or sometimes, restoring old config).
I'm moving from SuSE to Kubuntu, and I occasionally miss this "habit" which
I developed with SuSE. :)
FWIW: a matter of personal preference, and should not be taken as a critism
of Debian or its derivatives in any way.
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup posts from gitgo (http://improve-usenet.org).
Mumia W.
> In <48d26fd0$1...@news.bluewin.ch> Mark Madsen:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> never once felt the absence of a runlevel....
>
> I generally agree, but I find the ability to change run levels "on the fly"
> to be a *personal* convenience at times.
>
> For example, init 3 on SuSE, then run the "sax" tool (X setup) to tweak the
> X configuration (archive config, swap video monitors/cards, etc.). Then, an
> init 5 after testing new config (or sometimes, restoring old config).
>
> I'm moving from SuSE to Kubuntu, and I occasionally miss this "habit" which
> I developed with SuSE. :)
>
> FWIW: a matter of personal preference, and should not be taken as a critism
> of Debian or its derivatives in any way.
>
With Ubuntu 8.04 you can also configure the runlevels to start different
processes with sysv-rc-conf (or any other runlevel configuration
utility). Upstart is Borked by Design(TM) since it does not support
setting the initial runlevel from Grub, but it's not so hard to give
upstart the required ability:
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/wiki/OutstandingIssues
Thanks--interesting to see options published for doing runlevel mods.
Jimmy Johnson
> Also (and this is not a personal attack) the Debian project has been
> providing quality systems for a decade and a half. They've done enough
> to earn respect that people should find out why they made the choices as
> they did before applying criticism.
And a *BIG* Amen to that Bro. :) I will add that a Ubuntu LTS Base
install is also good.
--
Jimmy Johnson
Registered Linux User #380263
GNU/Linux Debian Etch
Magnate
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:08:54 +0100, Magnate wrote:
>> "Mark Madsen" <mark.s.ma...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:39:46 +0100, Magnate wrote:
>>>
>>>> But why is gdm set to start in runlevel 2?? I thought the whole point
>>>> of runlevels 2-5 was that you could choose whether to start different
>>>> things in them. RL1 is single-user, RL2 is multi-user console mode
>>>> (what the OP seems to want), RL5 is full X login via ?dm etc. (I never
>>>> did have a use for RLs 3 and 4.)
>>>
>>> If this is a Debian system, it has a different set of runlevels than
>>> the distros described here.
>>>
>>> I'm reading this in alt.os.linux.debian BTW.
>>
>> Me too. Can you point me to the Debian doc(s) on runlevels pls? I knew
>> Debian treated them differently - what I want to understand is why. I
>> see loss with no gain at the moment.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runlevel plus onward links.
>
> It's not that Debian specifically doesn't treat them differently, it's
> just that there is a lot of freedom to choose what runlevels are used for.
>
> Also (and this is not a personal attack) the Debian project has been
> providing quality systems for a decade and a half. They've done enough
> to earn respect that people should find out why they made the choices as
> they did before applying criticism.
That's precisely what I'm trying to do. I have a tremendous amount of
respect for everything about Debian except its documentation. I have used
Debian exclusively since about 2001, after five years of Slackware and
RedHat. I *like* Debian, a lot - I've even embarked upon the long process of
becoming a package maintainer. I just get very frustrated when I cannot find
out things I don't know or understand. This thread is a good example. You
kindly provided a link to Wikipedia, which has an onward link to the Debian
FAQ, but neither tells me what I really need to know: what is the rationale
for Debian including [xgk]dm in every runlevel from 2-5? What is the reason
for not allowing a multi-user runlevel without starting X automatically?
This seems to inconvenience the OP and everyone who wants that
functionality, while providing no obvious benefit. I respect Debian enough
to believe that there is a good explanation, I just want to find out what it
is.
> IMHE, I've run several Debian systems with or without display managers
> and never once felt the absence of a runlevel....
Me neither - but the OP's requirements feel it, and I can't see the OP being
unique in those requirements.
CC
Mumia W.
> [...] what I really need
> runlevel from 2-5? What is the reason for not allowing a multi-user
I'll provide a quick, non-authoritative answer: simplicity. The default
runlevels should be simple, and if something more complicated is needed,
the user can use update-rc.d to change the runlevels as the Debian
Reference recommends.
Magnate
Ok, thanks for the thought. I don't see anything simple about starting X
automatically, given the number of things that can go wrong with X. But I
see the point, even if I don't agree with it.
CC
John Hasler
> I don't see anything simple about starting X automatically, given the
> number of things that can go wrong with X.
Then don't install a display manager (or disable its startup script) and X
won't start automatically.
--
John Hasler
s. keeling
It's fire insurance, intended to get the most number of noobs up with
the least amount of confusion on their part (otherwise followed by
b*tch*ng to reportbug). The theory is, if you want something
different, you should know how to do that (and it's not hard).
I prefer to avoid installing *dm, and go my own way.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.
Magnate
> Magnate <n...@receiving.here>:
>> "Mumia W." <paduille.4061....@earthlink.net> wrote
>> > On 09/19/2008 07:00 AM, Magnate wrote:
>> >> [...] what I really need to know: what is the rationale for Debian
>> >> including [xgk]dm in every runlevel from 2-5? What is the reason for
>> >> not
>> >> allowing a multi-user runlevel without starting X automatically? [...]
>> >
>> > I'll provide a quick, non-authoritative answer: simplicity. The default
>> > runlevels should be simple, and if something more complicated is
>> > needed,
>> > the user can use update-rc.d to change the runlevels as the Debian
>> > Reference recommends.
>>
>> Ok, thanks for the thought. I don't see anything simple about starting X
>> automatically, given the number of things that can go wrong with X. But
>> I
>> see the point, even if I don't agree with it.
>
> It's fire insurance, intended to get the most number of noobs up with
> the least amount of confusion on their part (otherwise followed by
> b*tch*ng to reportbug). The theory is, if you want something
> different, you should know how to do that (and it's not hard).
Sure, I can see the sense in that - but surely it could also be achieved by
setting the default runlevel to 5? I guess it makes no real difference.
> I prefer to avoid installing *dm, and go my own way.
I tend to install *dm after making sure that X starts up correctly.
CC
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
> He can use "update-rc.d -f service remove" or he can create the mirror K
> link. Moving things completely out of the rc directories is not a good
> idea.
>
> by *far* the best way is to just rename the link and change the S for a
> K.
Whatever. It works for me. I don't mind a little cruft accumulation.
--
In Seattle, Washington, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon that
is over six feet in length.
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>>
>> He can use "update-rc.d -f service remove" or he can create the mirror K
>> link. Moving things completely out of the rc directories is not a good
>> idea.
>>
>> by *far* the best way is to just rename the link and change the S for a
>> K.
>
> Whatever. It works for me. I don't mind a little cruft accumulation.
Well, there are a million ways to do everything, Generally a right way
which is documented and supported and well understood and then there are
the hacks and the easy to forget things which are the cause of systems
being hosed 6 months down the line because you can not remember what you
did.
I know which I prefer.
So no, not "whatever" IMO. Bad ways become common ways. And when they
become common ways then system stability starts to suffer.
Witness the run around with NVidia and the NVidia Installer versus
NVidia-GLX for a good example.
I know you meant well and possibly your way is the correct way now, but
its not the way I was told a long while back and seems to be more robust
in every sense. I would be interested to hear the "official way" and
change my tendencies accordingly if I am wrong. There are just too many
different views out there IMO which can clash and upset the underlying
OS.
Moshe Goldfarb.
One of the worst things a user can do with Linux, IMHO, is venture outside
the prescribed methods for doing things as documented by his/her particular
distribution.
For example, with Ubuntu, going to Nvidia's site and downloading drivers
etc rather than using the Ubuntu package manager to do stuff.
Yes, it can and often does work fine, however a noob will be in deep crap
when it doesn't
This is especially true if the noob happens to follow outdated
instructions.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:51:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>>
>>> Whatever. It works for me. I don't mind a little cruft accumulation.
>>
>> Well, there are a million ways to do everything, Generally a right way
>> which is documented and supported and well understood and then there are
>> the hacks and the easy to forget things which are the cause of systems
>> being hosed 6 months down the line because you can not remember what you
>> did.
>>
>> I know which I prefer.
>>
>> So no, not "whatever" IMO. Bad ways become common ways. And when they
>> become common ways then system stability starts to suffer.
>>
>> Witness the run around with NVidia and the NVidia Installer versus
>> NVidia-GLX for a good example.
>>
>> I know you meant well and possibly your way is the correct way now, but
>> its not the way I was told a long while back and seems to be more robust
>> in every sense. I would be interested to hear the "official way" and
>> change my tendencies accordingly if I am wrong. There are just too many
>> different views out there IMO which can clash and upset the underlying
>> OS.
I seriously doubt I'm doing things in any kind of official way. In
fact, I was warned by people in the Debian mailing list that installing
Nvidia from their binary /would/ cause problems.
Perhaps it may, eventually, but in the meantime I've had no problems
<crosses fingers>.
> One of the worst things a user can do with Linux, IMHO, is venture outside
> the prescribed methods for doing things as documented by his/her particular
> distribution.
>
> For example, with Ubuntu, going to Nvidia's site and downloading drivers
> etc rather than using the Ubuntu package manager to do stuff.
>
> Yes, it can and often does work fine, however a noob will be in deep
> crap when it doesn't This is especially true if the noob happens to
> follow outdated instructions.
I see where you guys are coming from. However, here's my story (in
brief).
Although I ran Debian on one no-name laptop, because RedHat wouldn't
install on it due to a bug I didn't learn of until later, and learned a
lot that way, I was still primarily a RedHat user.
One day I wanted to change some behavior on my RedHat laptop, and in
digging into it, I found such layers of scripting around it as to make
it very difficult to figure out how to do what I wanted.
So I went to Debian full-time.
Now it seems like Debian is making its own layer of scripting, through
apt-get-supported procedures. But with a difference -- the simple init
script stuff is still simple. I can still get by with the procedures I
figured out when installing that first laptop.
If I were starting out today, I'd undoubtedly bypass the details of
/etc. At least I no longer build my own gcc!
Nostalgia:
I still have that old laptop. I actually /had/ to install Ubuntu on it,
Debian would not reinstall. And when I tried Debian on it again not
long ago, the hard drive started crapping out on that old unit. I was
hoping to use it run mpd next to my stereo.
> --
> Moshe Goldfarb
> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
> Please Visit www.linsux.org
Nice sig :-(
--
When a man you like switches from what he said a year ago, or four years
ago, he is a broad-minded man who has courage enough to change his mind
with changing conditions. When a man you don't like does it, he is a
liar who has broken his promises. -- Franklin Adams
Moshe Goldfarb.
That sounds like SuSE, at least the older versions.
A scripting nightmare, although their hardcopy manual explained it pretty
well.
> So I went to Debian full-time.
Good move :)
> Now it seems like Debian is making its own layer of scripting, through
> apt-get-supported procedures. But with a difference -- the simple init
> script stuff is still simple. I can still get by with the procedures I
> figured out when installing that first laptop.
>
> If I were starting out today, I'd undoubtedly bypass the details of
> /etc. At least I no longer build my own gcc!
Sounds like you would love gentoo, Slack or Linux from scratch :)
I generally try to stay away from messing with the scripts because I have
found my lack of knowledge in that area gets me in trouble.
It boils down to one thing depending on another which depends upon yet
another and just changing one little item can result in a real mess.
>> Moshe Goldfarb
>> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
>> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
>> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
>> Please Visit www.linsux.org
>
> Nice sig :-(
I forgot to turn it off for this group.
I only leave it in for COLA.
My bad :(
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:20:52 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> If I were starting out today, I'd undoubtedly bypass the details of
>> /etc. At least I no longer build my own gcc!
>
> Sounds like you would love gentoo, Slack or Linux from scratch :)
I've installed and used Gentoo for awhile. But...
> I generally try to stay away from messing with the scripts because I have
> found my lack of knowledge in that area gets me in trouble.
> It boils down to one thing depending on another which depends upon yet
> another and just changing one little item can result in a real mess.
... I did miss a few items in configuring it, and it had a few problems
installing the latest of certain apps.
I'll probably try it again at some point, though.
I generally take small steps, back up config files and such, and keep a
log book, so I can undo a mistake.
--
No friendship is so cordial or so delicious as that of girl for girl;
no hatred so intense or immovable as that of woman for woman.
-- Landor