Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> ":0.1" and "unix:0.1" are different names for the same thing, so I see
> nothing risky for X applications.
Right. The risk is to processes that are siblings of fvwm2 (other children of
the session manager), who (a) are not X-based, (b) inherited $DISPLAY from the
sessi
Running 2.4.5 on Solaris.
It seems that as a PipeRead script increases in size, fvwm2 struggles to
read and execute it. The maximum seems to be 1024 bytes, measured by
the string output in debug mode that begins:
<> about to attempt '
Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:29:25PM -0600, Gregg Dameron wrote:
> > Running 2.4.5 on Solaris.
> >
> > It seems that as a PipeRead script increases in size, fvwm2 struggles to
> > read and execute it. The maximum seems to be 1024 bytes, measured
ce to
pay; on an idle system you'd never know the difference. But the system here on
which fvwm runs tends to be anything but idle. When interactive performance gets
sluggish, our users get cranky.
Bottom line - PipeRead is brilliant, indispensable - I'd like to see it be more
so.
