From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Apr 23 07:57:03 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA08253 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 07:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plum.blueberry.co.uk ([194.70.52.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA08240 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 07:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nik@localhost) by plum.blueberry.co.uk (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA11846; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:49:22 +0100 (BST) From: Nik Clayton Message-Id: <199604231449.PAA11846@plum.blueberry.co.uk> Subject: Re: fvwm95 port and process limits / bin/sh problem? To: kelly@fsl.noaa.gov (Sean Kelly) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:49:21 +0100 (BST) Cc: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <9604231428.AA06233@fslg8.fsl.noaa.gov> from "Sean Kelly" at Apr 23, 96 08:30:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >>>>> "Nik" == Nik Clayton writes: > > Nik> So, is this an fvwm problem or a sh problem? Anyone more > Nik> qualified than I care to comment? > > Exec xterm & > Exec xbiff -geometry +30+30 & Ah, I feel much better, I can even tell you precisely why I didn't do that. There's about three sample entries in the .fvwm2rc95 file that *don't* do this, and I can even remember thinking to myself "That's odd, I used to need the "&" for ctwm, I obviously don't for fvwm." and did the same for all my new entries. Oh, the shame. Many thanks. And if at any point in the future you need the blindingly obvious pointed out to you, I'll be happy to return the favour B-) N -- --+=[ Blueberry Hill Blueberry Design ]=+-- --+=[ http://www.blueberry.co.uk/ 1/9 Chelsea Harbour Design Centre, ]=+-- --+=[ WebMaster@blueberry.co.uk London, England, SW10 0XE ]=+-- --+=[ Don't anthropomorphize computers. They don't like it. ]ENTP