On 12/16/2014 9:06 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
>> Shouldn't the startxwin script check for running instances and delete all
>> lock-files related to non-existent instances? Why must this be a manual
> I generally recommend against automagic cleanup of lock files from
> dead sessions being a general default because that also wipes out
> warning that something went wrong. I do it in my situation because I
> have it on (essentially) dumb terminals where the session working is
> much more important than knowing something went wrong, and the dumb
> terminals are on flaky power, so most of the dead sessions are due to
> power failure anyway.
Then the script should provide a popup (via zenity, yad, dialog, or
whatever) that informs the user that a prior session crashed, and offer
a "Continue/Abort" choice. Don't force casual X users to learn about
lock-files. By default, also provide a popup whenever a running server
is detected, to avoid redundant servers being launched inadvertently.
Help normal users get on with their work, rather than providing a
surprisingly different environment requiring specialized knowledge to
>> The prior startxwin.exe "just worked", and this new replacement script is
>> clearly creating problems for previously happy CygwinX users, where no
>> problems existed before (or, at least the problems weren't visible and
>> didn't affect normal use).
> I actually have no experience with startxwin; I always called the X
> server directly with the options I wanted. However, I can say that
> freeing of lock files is the job of the process that created the lock
> files. If you kill the process, stray lock files are a normal
Evidently, that isn't being done. But the prior startxwin.exe never, in
my experience, created the issues of the new startxwin script.
>> I would have preferred to have seen startxwin.exe retained, and this new
>> script phased in gradually, perhaps as "startxwin_new" in the first release.
>> Then, when startxwin_new stabilizes, rename the executable to
>> startxwin_old.exe and the script to startxwin. Several updates later,
>> quietly remove startxwin_old.exe.
>> It seems nonsensical to treat all CygwinX users as alpha testers. I'm more
>> than willing to help test new features, but not in the dark: Make it very
>> clear when significant subsystems are being evolved, and provide a way to
>> try the new without losing the old.
> The changes were announced, and the announcement already sited in this
> thread. Having read the announcement again, it looks like the
> replacement has as one of its goals bringing the X system more in line
> with general X and *nix standards, which, as far as I know, has always
> been a general goal of the entire Cygwin set of projects.
I never used this list until AFTER the update killed my previously
stable CygwinX environment.
It is silly to expect all CygwinX users to actively monitor a list just
to avoid getting their systems broken.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html