On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:46:21PM -0600, Gregg Dameron wrote:
> Dan Espen wrote:
>
> > Oops, looks like someone top posted:
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > I would vote in favor of an increase.
> >
> > You might get your increase, but I don't really favor it.
> > It just uses up some memory for an extreme case that can be avoided
> > pretty easily.
>
> Thanks to all who have responded to this thread.
>
> You're quite right, Dan. My original posting campaigned for dynamic memory
> allocation. My motivation is to minimize disk reads after the configuration is
> loaded. True, reading and executing a short script from disk is a small price to
> pay; on an idle system you'd never know the difference. But the system here on
> which fvwm runs tends to be anything but idle. When interactive performance gets
> sluggish, our users get cranky.
>
> Bottom line - PipeRead is brilliant, indispensable - I'd like to see it be more
> so.
But PipeRead already starts an external program.
Bye
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt, email: d.vogt_at_lifebits.de
LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen
fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Fri Apr 19 2002 - 05:28:36 BST