At Sun, 4 Feb 2024 09:51:45 +1000 Stuart Longland <stua...@longlandclan.id.au> wrote:
> > On 4/2/24 08:05, Thomas Adam wrote: > I think this is where we need to consider what the FVWM/Wayland re-write > would look like. What can be practically brought across under the > constraints of the `wlroots` back-end (or Wayland itself), and what do > we have to leave behind? Of the things we can bring across, what items > are of most important to people? > > - Are people using FVWM for its looks? (Themability) Looks/functionallity: I want the MWM look/functionallity. > - Are people using FVWM for its binding/scripting support? > - Are people using FVWM for just being light-weight? YES! I want as lightweight a window manager as posible. I don't want to have to a super powerful computer, just because of my GUI. Some of the GUI tools I use are more then "bloated" enough without having to add a "bloated" memory hog just to manage a few windows. > > I think this is what we need to be asking, what is important to us, the > FVWM community that we want to preserve? Then we can figure out how > best to bring across enough of the FVWM "essence" to build a new home in > the land of Wayland. -- Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services hel...@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
