4 ms·
Changing how the environment works isn't a trivial change, it would have far-reaching consequences, and every program that reads the environment would need to b
by lottin 11y ago
Changing how the environment works isn't a trivial change, it would have far-reaching consequences, and every program that reads the environment would need to be patched, not only the shells and display managers.
- barrkel 11y agoIf the aim is to replicate how Windows works, only the GUI shell would need to reload environment variables (i.e. the process that forks when you start programs using whatever the desktop's idiom is).
- lottin 11y agoThis seems inconsistent behaviour to me. Some running processes reload the environment and others don't. Maybe in Windows they can get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
- darklajid 11y agoTo be fair: The Windows way is kinda consistent: If the environment definition was changed, everyone gets a window message. It's just that no one but explorer.exe cares about that and reacts, as far as I'm aware (Raymond Chen had a recent article mentioning exactly this). So, the OS tells everyone 'Hey, you totally could update your environment'. But your running instance of Skype or whatever just doesn't need to care.
- zastrowm 11y agoRaymond Chen article for anyone that is interested: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2015/09/15/10641604.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2015/09/15/10641...
- majkinetor 11y agoI think that reacting to system change is opt-in.