Re: Huge Batch Reply: Lars - Systemowned exit stuff...

[Ric Klaren <ia_ric cs utwente nl>]

On Wed, Aug 05, 1998 at 12:13:43PM -0700, Dan Effugas Kaminsky wrote:
> Because it makes logical sense.  The menuprint is owned by the *system*, not
> by the application.  In Windows right now when a program crashes I need to
> press control-alt-delete and try to find that program's entry, and kill
> that.  It'd be much nicer to have a button that works when even the app
> doesn't and be able to force quit.

One practical comment on this... It's nice to have ok.. maybe
(functionality is already provided by wm and if the wm is consistent about
it the user will know about it). If I'm not mistaken the menu bar is drawn
by the app itself. (It's no atari GEM where the menubar is drawn by the
system). This means that if the app is hanging the menu bar cannot
function. So only a process in another thread of execution can kill the
app....

Then again.... if the app is dead.... and the user realizes the app is
dead. Is it then logical that the user expects the 'corpse' to carry itself
away. so to say ;) Or is it more logical for the user to expect that the
'good old mother of all applications': the wm takes out the trash? eg the
close button of the window?

Ric
-- 
-----+++++*****************************************************+++++++++-------
- Ric Klaren - ia_ric@cs.utwente.nl ------- klaren@cs.utwente.nl --------------
-----+++++*****************************************************+++++++++-------
'And this 'rebooting' business? Give it a good kicking, do you?' 'Oh, no,
 of course, we ... that is ... well, yes, in fact,' said Ponder. 'Adrian
   goes round the back and ... er ... prods it with his foot. But in a
    technical way,' he added. --- From: Hogfather by Terry Pratchett.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PGP signature