On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 12:27:46 +0100 René J.V. Bertin via X11-users <x11-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
> Does this ring any bells, an X11 operation that raises a BadAccess > when run over the local DISPLAY socket but not when it goes (IIUC!) > via the TCP layer? I'm not sure I understand the question, but I have a couple other observations for you in case that helps. The local DISPLAY socket is a socket, the OS interface to the TCP/IP protocol. From an application and security point of view, there's not a whole lot of difference between running a client process on the other side of a local socket or running it on another machine. For the last two decades, I've run X11 applications on remote machines. A great many, the majority I would say, write warning messages to standard error. No one seems to care. I've never tried to understand what engenders the messages, assuming that my not-Gnome, not-KDE, macOS-hosted environment just lacked things (like a D-bus) that application developers assumed would be there but evidently don't need. Reading the X11 documentation, it can be very difficult to discern which files/settings control the client and which the server. I think that's because for most people it doesn't matter, because client and server are on one machine. There are workarounds. But running emacs as a daemon, for example, messages are eliminated. My solution has been to soldier on. The Wayland folks are determined to displace X11 entirely, and are slowly succeeding. In its stead, they want memory-mapped local displays and RDP emulation of local displays. That's our loss, but what's the point of a graphical UI if you can't frag without lag: shoot at aliens and ogres in living color? --jkl _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. X11-users mailing list (X11-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/x11-users/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
