Re: It is indeed, a very sad day...

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 00:47, John wrote:
> The problem was with Gnome. I've got no idea why it would read > >
>gstalker's data file once gstalker was removed, but it sure took a
>while to do it.
> Once gstalker was removed, I can't imagine why Gnome would want to read the 
> file.

Maybe becuase gstalker wasnt suppose to write 70megs there....
maybe because how ever you removed gstalker...didn't remove things
correctly....

It gstalker is probably not following some gnome convention about when
and what to place in .gnome...its could be completely gstalker's fault
for being a crappily written application and putting its data where it
isn't suppose to.

How is gnome suppose to know what is worth reading down in .gnome?  How
would you restrict applications from writing data files into directories
where they shouldn't?

Are you saying that KDE has a mechanism where kde based applications are
forced to create datafiles in appropriate locations...and failing that
KDE has a mechanism by where it knows what data file belongs to what kde
based application...and whether said application is still installed?
Are you saying that a poorly written KDE application could not ever
interfere with KDE desktop in a similar way if the kde based application
wrote a datafile in the wrong place?  It's not clear to me that KDE is
less accident prone than GNOME...it could simply be gstalker is a horrid
little hack of a program which you shouldn't be using because its broken
and does very bad things with its datafiles.  It's not not clear to me
that KDE isn't vulnerable in a similar way to poorly written kde based
programs.  You just haven't been lucky enough to run across a kde
program as poorly coded as gstalker.  


-jef

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQA9lGHnrWLDmRitRZURAhkWAJ4nYhpm81sjTDUgHAyCvvbdl2tV8wCghWah
iUtU2dr0O3UbV/hv3O3QbCE=
=7lua
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----