Nathaniel Smith spake unto us the following wisdom: > > I don't see the problem, what am I missing? > > If the xpra client goes off to la-la land, then modern WMs will > notice, and pop up a "hey, this app is unresponsive, do you want to > kill it?" dialog. And if you click "yes", then it'll actually kill the > app (not just disconnect it from the X server and leave it spinning in > the background and silently chewing all your cpu, no matter how > traditional that is, hi netscape 4). But this only works if > WM_CLIENT_MACHINE indicates that it's on the same host and kill(2) > will work.
So ... the problem is that some (new) software is bad. This is a
common theme, if we worked around all bad new software, we'd have to
give up on computers entirely. ;-)
This doesn't bother me, it still seems like passing WM_CLIENT_MACHINE
is the most correct course of action.
> This is a bit of a finicky detail, though, and of course, xpra
> contains no bugs, so this will never come up.
>
> I'm not sure if there are any other non-cosmetic uses of
> WM_CLIENT_MACHINE... there could be in principle, but maybe not in
> practice.
Session management can use it. This again might not be exactly what
you want when xpra is involved ... but I don't think that means xpra
should hide things.
Ethan
--
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Parti-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.partiwm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parti-discuss
