Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 01 Aug 1998 23:49:45 -0600
From:      "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org>
To:        Stefan Eggers <seggers@semyam.dinoco.de>
Cc:        Henry Vogt <henry@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: State of current... 
Message-ID:  <199808020549.XAA06153@pencil-box.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:10:47 %2B0200." <199807201010.MAA07091@semyam.dinoco.de> 
References:  <199807201010.MAA07091@semyam.dinoco.de>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199807201010.MAA07091@semyam.dinoco.de> Stefan Eggers writes:
: > So this appears to me like a new introduced bug in the shared memory handling
: ?
: > (Or am I wrong that the difference between :0.0 and <hostname>:0.0 is the way
: > IPC between X-Server and -Client ist handled ?)
: 
: As far as I know :0.0 uses a Unix domain socket under /tmp while the
: latter form uses TCP/IP.

:0.0 is defined to use the best transport possible for the local
machine, which in the case of all X servers for FreeBSD uses the unix
domain socket.  hostname:0.0 uses tcp/ip transport.

shared memory is used only for pixmaps in the freebsd x server.

Warner

P.S.  This is for both x inside (errr xig) and xfree86

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808020549.XAA06153>