Hi, <pcg@xxxxxxxx ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> writes: > Yes, you miss the first and last error causes given above. A "local" > process proves nothing about file accessibility. > > Think about it, X11 is a networked environment. Processes share an > X-display, but not the filesystem view. Linux for example provides each > process with it's own filesystem view, and this is expected to be used > more and more in the future. "local" of course means on the same file-system, which can easily be checked by looking at a pid file on that very same file-system and checking that it corresponds to the GIMP application that announces itself using an atom on the X server. > I think having the option of using "gimp-remote" with clearly > defined limitations (same filesyetm view required) and using "gimp" > to ensure correctness is preferable over some heuristic that gets it > right for 95% of the users or so. What advantage does an integrated > solution bring? As far as -i can see, it's only badly written > programs that mindlessly use "gimp" when they should offer the > option of using either gimp or gimp-remote. The question wouldn't come up so frequently then. Lately things have improved a bit because the desktop entry specification has become widely adopted. That doesn't work for all platforms/desktops though. Sven
