In any case, you removed your quote, but before you said there was no
legitimate reason to 'kill -9' the X server. As you imply now, there can
be legitimate reasons, and possibly dire consequences in doing so. And
again, I agree, if you want to make it more stable in userspace, you can
add a graphics wrapper to it so that when you have to 'kill -9' the X
server because it got hosed, the wrapper can clean up the graphics before
exiting. But don't deny the problem just because people may not see the
solution (please).
-Rob
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Rob Hagopian wrote:
> > I hate to get sucked into this thread, but really... if there's no
> > legitimate reason to 'kill -9' the X server then why the heck is there
> > such think as 'kill -9' in the first place?
>
> 'If there is no legitimate reason to kill the current president of the
> United States with a shotgun, then why the heck are there such things
> as "shotguns" in the first place?'
>
> Where did you learn your logic?
>
> "kill -9" is very useful. But you'd better be damned well aware that when
> you do it, you're killing the process and leaving it no chance to clean
> up. If you consider a corrupted screen unacceptable, then you should
> consider "kill -9 X" unacceptable.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html