In message <20190605213540.hmud7pziqi64a6i5@laptop.local>, Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote:
>> For me, 3c was in fact just a blank space. I just now figured out why. On >> FreeBSD, the xload command is in a separate package, all on its own, and that >> package is *not* currently listed as dependency of the fvwm package. (I will >> be speakingt o the maintainer about this.) As a result, my system was >> running > >No sane maintainer is going to make xload a dependency of FVWM. The point of >the default config here isn't to do that, but to provide some sane defaults >where possible. The default configuration assumes the presence of xload. I will let the FreeBSD port maintainer decide if that means that xload should be listed as a prerequsite for fvwm. I have an opinion on this, and you have one, and he may have a third. >> In any case, I would like to suggest to the fvwm maintainers that they do as >> I have done and substitute out the xload invocation in the default theme and >> replace it, as I have done, with a digital xclock display of the current >> date. > >No. I think what you've done is to prove the point -- that being that you're >expected to use this config as a starting to point to make your own >modifications, which you're doing. As much as I admire all of the ornate and impressive complexity of fvwm, I never actually -wanted- to do any of this. It has taken me a lot of hours, and none of what I have learned is applicable or useful to anything else that I am doing, or that I am at all likely to do in the future. No offense intended, but if there had been some other window manager that would give me multiple virutal desktops... a feature that I can no longer live without... and which didn't require a massive amount of unlearning and then re-learning (i.e. of basic usage conventions) then I would have used that instead. I am not seeking to become an X wizard or a window manager wizard or anything else. I just know enough to barely get by and that's all I have time for right now. I have promises to keep, and many spammers to kill. >> I would really appreciate it if the maintainers would fix this self-evident >> bug. It is most annoying. The minimization/iconization process should not >> be hiding minimized window icons underneath the boxes created by the default >> theme. That's just wrong, and one would hope that there might be some simple >> way to get the window minimization/iconization process to avoid doing this >> annoying and clearly wrong thing. > >This isn't a bug. I gather that you would prefer not to elaborate further on that assertion, but I will ask you to do so anyway. How exactly is hiding icons underneath something else... where they can't even be clicked on... a Good Thing? I mean, you know, for a perfectly ordinary end-luser. Regards, rfg
