[conspire] Dapper & Easyubuntu

Daniel Gimpelevich daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Mon Dec 4 15:31:16 PST 2006

This is in no way contrary to what I said. Since the X server offers apps
nothing whatsoever of this sort, apps do whatever they like to get it
done. However, if the X server were to suddenly offer it when it never did
before, no existing apps would be affected in any way </hyperbole> unless
brute force gets applied in the form of breaking the apps entirely.

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:07:43 -0800, Paul Reiber wrote:

> Daniel - that's more of the same "whack-a-mole" approach, only moved
> from the user's responsibility (i.e. like I do - running xterm -hold
> -e firefox) to being the application developer's responsibility.
> Besides that... how can a dead process manage a window showing the
> user the errors it had as it died?  Every application would have to
> have its own monitor application, similar to my kludged-together
> semi-solution with xterm.
> I agree with Adrien that the best place to nail this problem would be
> within the X server itself - not even counting on the particular
> window manager to handle the problem... since the window manager
> itself may have multiple processes that come and go and each have
> their own stderr/stdout to contend with...
> It's still foggy... but I'm beginning to see a few ways how it might work.
> An expandable/collapsable "process tree" representation... could use
> color coding or bold/italics/regular font to indicate processes which
> have new output on stdout or stderr that the user might want to see.
> Clicking on a particular process would show it's stderr & stdout text
> inline, below it, in the tree.   It might hold onto the output from
> finished processes for some configurable number of minutes after they
> die.

More information about the conspire mailing list