Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 15th Aug 2009 17:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 378920
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
You keep mindlessly repeating the isolation mantra as if it will magically solve the problem you experienced. It won't. X11 fundamentally has a lot of isolation seeing as each of the parts communicates over network sockets. Of course, I'm pretty sure you've ranted before about how that also makes X suck.
The real problem is that X clients can't survive the server going away. There are a number of good reasons why this is the case. The most important being that --for performance reasons-- the server maintains data structures on behalf of the clients (such as pixmaps). There a number of ways this could be rectified, but it would undoubtedly cause API semantics to change in non-trivial ways.