Ok I reinstalled linux and have this thing running on frambuffer in Window Maker, (I dont like this Xwindows) Hopefully when I log out it will let me back in, we will see

X windows can be tricky if you're chipset is not popularly supported. You have a choice now of being content with framebuffer (provided it will still work) or troubleshooting (in your spare time?) the intel drivers. (which will then prove beneficial to others with the chipset who are unable to get the thing operational.

yea it seems that if I switch to gnome it dies the second time I log in, but if I stay with WM I am alright, I think I will try to set up up without framebuffer in my spare time

WindowMaker aint bad. bit of a different interface than what most are accostomed to. Others you might want to check (if you really cant stand window maker) are
afterstep
enlightenment (my favorite)
blackbox (very nice very clean very simple)
fluxbox (a rewrite of blackbox)
iceWM

I've been having a similar problem with gdm. twm starts up fine (that's what I'm in now), but gdm stops after it displays it's flash screen, but before it shows any of the icons along the bottom edge. Here's my .xsession-error FWIW:
/etc/X11/gdm/PreSession//Default: Registering your session with wtmp and utmp
/etc/X11/gdm/PreSession//Default: running: sessreg -a -w /var/log/wtmp -u /var/run/utmp -x "/var/lib/gdm/:0.Xservers" -h "" -l :0 lsiden

I looked in /var/lib/gdm and found :0.log. It's contents are:

XFree86 Version 4.3.0
Release Date: 27 February 2003
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 6.6
Build Operating System: Linux 2.4.19-gentoo-r9 i686 [ELF]
Build Date: 06 May 2003
Before reporting problems, check http://www.XFree86.Org/
to make sure that you have the latest version.
Module Loader present
Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting,
(++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational,
(WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown.
(==) Log file: "/var/log/XFree86.0.log", Time: Tue Jun 17 15:48:20 2003
(==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/XF86Config"
AUDIT: Tue Jun 17 15:50:46 2003: 3104 X: client 5 rejected from local host
AUDIT: Tue Jun 17 15:50:46 2003: 3104 X: client 5 rejected from local host

I'm not sure I understand what the last line means: "client 5 rejected ...". What is "client 5"?

The recent changes on my system include emerging xscreensaver, which was a prime suspect, so I unmerged it. Another suspect was samba, so I disabled it. I also tried disabling cups, since I had modified cupsd.conf, but none of the above helped. I'm quite stumped.

first when you say 'gdm' do you mean gnome window manager or gnome display manager? if its gnome window manager what does /var/log/XFree86.0.log say?

Good question. I don't know whether it was the display manager or the window manager that hung, but I got it fixed. You won't believe this, but it was caused by a mistake I made while editing my firewall rules (iptables). I accedentally deleted the rule that allows all incoming traffic from localhost. For some reason, Gnome window or display mgr wants to talk to something on localhost while it starts up, and if it doesn't get a response, will wait forever. It may have something to do with the printer, b/c I've installed cups, and lpr, lp, and lpstat were also hanging w/out any diagnostic messages. Maybe Gnome calls lpstat to see what print queues are out there, and since lpstat needs to use localhost:631 (the cups address), it hangs. I think it's a design flaw that Gnome should also hang, and not time out. I need to get around to reporting this.

-Larry

well (and iptables gurus tell me if I'm right, wrong, or a moron) but X and its clients run on a server-client based model. So if an xserver starts and gnome tries to make a connection to it... does that type of connect run over the same channels iptables monitors? or am I way off base?

That's it! Nice work, Sherlock! I've been so brainwashed by Windws that I forgot that even on a standalone system, Gnome (the client) talks to X (the server) over a connection, which would be the same as `hostname` which on my system is an alias for 127.0.0.1, the loopback "device". But I still think it kinda sucks that Gnome will not time out if it doesn't get a response in x seconds, but then, who else but a klutz like me would accidentally block all incoming traffic on their loopback device? ~o~ <shrug>

iptables is some powerful stuff and anyone who first started with it I'm sure has created some interesting if not undesired results. (My favorite was wondering why the hell my 'ping's weren't coming back to me.)