Hello, With "united Dillo" I mean that there is always just one Dillo running per user, so when you start Dillo while it is already running, then the current one will open a new window. I made a patch as proof of concept, see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~dorinek/dillo This approach has two big advantages: 1) Always one Dillo has less overhead than running multiple instances at the same time. 2) Automatic synchronization/no need for synchronization anymore. First advantage is in the spirit of Dillo, wanting to be small, light and fast. Second advantage means that doing certain things will be much simpler, like having always cookies, no need to synchronize plugins, meaning that dpid is not really needed anymore, because most of the points from the problem list are solved (see Dpid.txt). Problems that aren't solved: * Forks can be expensive (Dillo had to fork its dpis). But dpid does much more than simply forking: it forks and then starts up an external program (which often also forks and starts up wget). Beside, if Dillo uses library plugins then there is no need to fork at all. * It increments dillo's core size. The patch adds about 70 lines of code to dillo.c and increases dillo with about 1 K. It is true that if you get rid of dpid then more code is needed in Dillo's core. But that's only moving the code to some other place, no real increase if you ask me. Having a seperate dpid has much more overhead at runtime (seperate process versus bigger executable). You can always make a plugin handling library, then it isn't part of Dillo's core. Of course a united Dillo has problems/disadvantages too: It is sometimes still needed to synchronize multiple windows. If it's not implemented carefully, you may lose functionality (aka command line options). A user can't run more than one Dillo instance. Sometimes it's wanted to run multiple Dillo's, for instance two different versions. But that isn't possible at all, or if version awareness is added, without losing synchronization. What do you think about it? Greetings, Indan