On 18 Mar, Alexander Gottwald wrote: > > > http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/cygwin-x-faq.html#q-ssh-no-x11forwarding > > bye
No, I read that before I posted (I should have said so, sorry). Other X applications start (sometimes - see below). My investigations suggest that waiting 10 minutes and trying again is a workaround. But Harold's suggestion (to use trusted X forwarding), has worked twice in succession now with no need for a 10 minute pause to get things working, so that seems to be a solution. I still don't understand why a 10 minute pause was needed with old-style X forwarding, but hey, it works with -Y. Thanks, Harold. > > X Error of failed request: BadAtom (invalid Atom parameter) > > Major opcode of failed request: 18 (X_ChangeProperty) > > Atom id in failed request: 0xee > > Serial number of failed request: 12 > > Current serial number in output stream: 15 > > I tried running the MUA from inside gdb, and it worked. > Basically, this is what happened > > postilion --> error message above > repeat 3 times > ssh -X to my Linux machine > postilion --> error message above > xmessage --> ok > tkxplanet --> ok > postilion inside gdb --> ok > postilion --> ok > # log out > postilion --> this error message: > > X Error of failed request: BadAtom (invalid Atom parameter) > Major opcode of failed request: 20 (X_GetProperty) > Atom id in failed request: 0xee > Serial number of failed request: 11 > Current serial number in output stream: 11 > > ssh -X to my Linux machine > > $ tkxplanet > X Error of failed request: BadAtom (invalid Atom parameter > Major opcode of failed request: 20 (X_GetProperty) > Atom id in failed request: 0xee > Serial number of failed request: 11 > Current serial number in output stream: 11 > $ xmessage ok > $ tkxplanet > X Error of failed request: BadAtom (invalid Atom parameter) > Major opcode of failed request: 20 (X_GetProperty) > Atom id in failed request: 0xee > Serial number of failed request: 11 > Current serial number in output stream: 11 > > I haven't managed to run the MUA a 2nd time. > > Ah. Having just typed all this up, I just tried again in case it might > be time related. Since both times it worked, it was about 10 minutes > after a series of failures. Sure enough, it's working again at the > moment. > > Any idea what might be going on here? luke
