[Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

Matthias Hopf mhopf at suse.de
Tue Feb 14 12:03:14 PST 2006

On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:
> Xtst is a local only "solution".  As such, it doesn't help LTSP.

IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge.

> There are (at least) two ways to solve this problem, that can/should be
> discussed on the xdg list:
>    o use of a X property somewhere to communicate with a session
> management daemon (or window manager) of this desire.
>    o use of an out of band mechanism like DBUS.
> Either is satisfactory from my perspective.  Note that a proper solution
> using DBUS will beg cross system issues (and making dbus secure across
> the network); this ought to be done in any case (I know some work was
> done to add security to dbus in the past; I don't know its current
> status).  Folks like LTSP (and others) really care about running over
> the network, and this should be possible.

I think something related to the X protocol (e.g. *no* DBUS) is much
more convenient, because one wants to disable the screen saver on a
particular display. Authorization and identification comes for free when
done using the X protocol.


Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de>       __        __   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg    (_   | |  (_   |__         mat at mshopf.de
Phone +49-911-74053-715            __)  |_|  __)  |__  labs   www.mshopf.de

More information about the Desktop_architects mailing list