On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:15:21AM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> "seventh guardian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I must confess I'm not very fond of listen only modules. I believe it
> > is more of a hack than a long term solution to the "shell script
> > module" problem. And I would really like it removed, and for that the
> > sooner the better.
> >
> > So I was messing around to see if it was really needed, and it's not. The
> > pro
> > of:
> >
> > run "Module FvwmCommandS"
> >
> > create a simple bash script like this:
> >
> > #!/bin/bash
> > echo 'Module FvwmBanner' > /var/tmp/FvwmCommand-${HOSTNAME}${DISPLAY}C
> >
> > Now a nice FvwmBanner will appear. You can build complicated scripts
> > in any language that allows you to write to a file, zsh included, no
> > overhead whatsoever.
> >
> > And if you want to listen to fvwm it's a matter of listening to the
> > 'M' counterpart: /var/tmp/FvwmCommand-${HOSTNAME}${DISPLAY}M
> >
> > The only issue I can see here is the possible variation of the fifo
> > names, which is not that severe.
> >
> > Any reasons to keep the ListenOnly module mechanism?
>
> Compatibility?I just coded it a while ago for my own purposes, so that's no problem. > Running FvwmCommandS is a security exposure. > Some users might be reluctant to use it. I don't use FvwmCommand because it's too slow. I wanted a solution for displaying a clock and the process using the most cpu with as little overhead as possible. I do not want to start an executable every n seconds because it has a negative influence on my system, (namely the graphics performance of Kobo-Deluxe). I didn't do it for the fun of it but to solve a real problem. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, dominik.vogt (at) gmx.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
