On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Jon TURNEY <jon.tur...@dronecode.org.uk> wrote: > > No. Â startx and startxwin are different tools to solve different problems. > > I keep adding more text to [1] to clarify this, but this doesn't appear to > help, perhaps because nobody actually reads it... > > [1] http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ug/using.html#using-starting >
I read it. I just don't agree with it. These appear to be the reasons: 1) "startxwin supplies the -multiwindow option to XWin.exe" So does startx if you put that in the shortcut. 2) "It uses a different script to start clients (~/.startxwinrc rather than ~/.xinitrc), because ~/.xinitrc will normally end by starting a window manager, which would be incorrect for ~/.startxwinrc (as it would discover the internal window manager is already running and exit immediately)." In my opinion, it doesn't really matter with .xinitrc normally ends with. We can end it with anything that we want. It sounds like you can get the startxwin behavior (if that's what you really want) from startx if you put "sh ~/.startxwinrc& while : ; do sleep 1000; done" in your .xinitrc. 3) "startxwin exits after ~/.startxwinrc has completed and leaves XWin.exe running, whereas startx waits until ~/.xinitrc exits (which is usually waiting for the window manager started by it to exit) and then kills XWin.exe." If you don't like the behavior of startx exiting after the .xinitrc is complete, then why not write your .xinitrc so that it doesn't exit? Is it really worth maintaining another program when you can get the same behavior out of existing programs through config changes? Additionally, the startxwin.exe program is missing the security feature of creating a .Xauthority file. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
