Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: "T.M. Sommers" <tms@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:02:22 -0400
Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> "T.M. Sommers" wrote:
>> Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
>
>>> Then this must be a bug in "file". e_shentsize is 0 and
>>> there are no sections at all.
>>
>> The Elf spec allows e_shnum to be zero, but it does not say
>> that e_shentsize may be zero.
>
> It does also not say, it must be not zero.
>
> e_shentsize This member holds a section header's size in
> bytes.
And the section header's size is not zero.
Since two indepedent implementors of file disagree with you, you might want to consider the possibility that they know what they are doing.
>> Do you know about select(2)?
>
> I have read it, but thought it is easier to make the socket
> connection non blocking (fcntl O_NONBLOCK) and use a wait if
> necessary.
select(2) is the canonical way of doing it.
>> I don't know anything about the X protocol (other than what
>> I looked up for this reply), but it appears that the
>> authorization protocol must be present. man Xsecurity will
>> help.
>
> The authorization name indicates what authorization (and
> authentication) protocol the client expects the server to use,
> and the data is specific to that protocol. Specification of
> valid authorization mechanisms is not part of the core X
> protocol. A server that does not implement the protocol the
> client expects or that only implements the host-based
> mechanism may simply ignore this information. If both name and
> data strings are empty, this is to be interpreted as ‘‘no
> explicit authorization.’’
Okay, but that does not mean that the server is required to accept connections with no authentication protocol.
>> I little further research (well, running xauth) shows that
>> my system is currently using MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 for all
>> connections. No hosts are allowed for host access at the
>> moment. Run xhost on your system, and see what it says.
>
> It uses the server interpreted family:
>
> SI:localuser:loginname
My documentation does not mention that protocol.
> It's really no fun, to do low level Linux programing if there
> is no standard configuration
One size does not fit all. Host access might be sufficient for some installations, but others might require cryptographically- secure authentication. Allowing the system administrator to decide is good, not bad.
> and even a local running program
> can't freely access the X server.
You are forgetting that Unix is multi-user and multi-tasking. If we are both logged in to the same host, do you really want me to be able to fiddle with your display?
> Seems better to go back to
> Windows.
Since you seem unwilling to adapt to the Unix way of doing things, perhaps you should go back.
Note that you are trying to do things at a lower level than you would ever try on Windows.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- tms@xxxxxx -- AB2SB
.
- References:
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: T.M. Sommers
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: T.M. Sommers
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Prev by Date: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Next by Date: Re: VC code output SUX !
- Previous by thread: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Next by thread: Re: Standard way of graphics in Linux
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
