Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:42:52 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: As usual, I disagree. Message-ID: <15366.58396.746782.116282@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <61809931@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types: > Much less functional, too. There are good reasons for broadcasting every event > to every Window (or nearly so). It makes the system very flexible and > responsive. No, there are good reasons for allowing every client application to find out about every event. That's not the same thing at all. Doing it the Windows way leads to the huge, resource-consuming GUI that MS has saddled the world with. Doing it the X ways leads to a minor increase in application complexity - you have to tell the server what you want to hear about - and a major drop in resource usage compared to the Windows way. > Actually, Windows NT sacrificed a bit of this, as individual programs no longer > get as much information concerning other windows owned by other programs as they > did under consumer versions of Windows. This change was a consequence of > security enhancements. Sounds like Windows NT isn't as good a desktop as X. X clients can get all the available information about any window open on any display they can talk to. Yes, this represents a security problem, but you're the one who keeps saying that doesn't matter on the desktop. In practice, you don't let untrusted applications connect to your X server, which makes the security problems moot. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15366.58396.746782.116282>