Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:15:21AM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> > "seventh guardian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I must confess I'm not very fond of listen only modules. I believe it
> > > is more of a hack than a long term solution to the "shell script
> > > module" problem. And I would really like it removed, and for that the
> > > sooner the better.
> > >=20
> > > So I was messing around to see if it was really needed, and it's not. T=
> he pro
> > > of:
> > >=20
> > > run "Module FvwmCommandS"
> > >=20
> > > create a simple bash script like this:
> > >=20
> > > #!/bin/bash
> > > echo 'Module FvwmBanner' > /var/tmp/FvwmCommand-${HOSTNAME}${DISPLAY}C
> > >=20
> > > Now a nice FvwmBanner will appear. You can build complicated scripts
> > > in any language that allows you to write to a file, zsh included, no
> > > overhead whatsoever.
> > >=20
> > > And if you want to listen to fvwm it's a matter of listening to the
> > > 'M' counterpart: /var/tmp/FvwmCommand-${HOSTNAME}${DISPLAY}M
> > >=20
> > > The only issue I can see here is the possible variation of the fifo
> > > names, which is not that severe.
> > >=20
> > > Any reasons to keep the ListenOnly module mechanism?
> >=20
> > Compatibility?
>
> I just coded it a while ago for my own purposes, so that's no
> problem.
>
> > Running FvwmCommandS is a security exposure.
> > Some users might be reluctant to use it.
>
> I don't use FvwmCommand because it's too slow. I wanted a solution
> for displaying a clock and the process using the most cpu with as
> little overhead as possible. I do not want to start an executable
> every n seconds because it has a negative influence on my system,
> (namely the graphics performance of Kobo-Deluxe). I didn't do it
> for the fun of it but to solve a real problem.
Great game.
In the first version of it I had I managed level 350 or so.
That last one I had, level 50 stopped me cold.
--
Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
