Re: FVWM: New default configuration wanted...
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:27:51PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: Hi all, This intended to be something fairly long-running, and I personally don't wish to make the UI decisions myself, although I will keep a very close eye on the FVWM-specific aspects of a proposed config to make sure it's done right. What do I mean when I say right? Well, for far too long now FVWM has had a major thorn in its side -- the default config *sucks* to put it bluntly. It's been a well known issue for years that it looks like a throwback to 1995 [1] and it's time to modernise it a bit. There was an aborted attempt at this by Nick Fortune and myself [2] which you should read before attempting this, as although the thread is a good five years old now, the concept in there are not. *Please read it*. I want a few things from a new config: [...] Has anyone done any more work on this? I've received nothing off-list to indicate that's been the case -- and I do not know how, if at all, this is being coordinated which is slightly annoying. -- Thomas Adam -- Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not. -- Morrissey (Girl Least Likely To -- off of Viva Hate.)
Re: FVWM: New default configuration wanted...
Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org writes: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:27:51PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: Hi all, This intended to be something fairly long-running, and I personally don't wish to make the UI decisions myself, although I will keep a very close eye on the FVWM-specific aspects of a proposed config to make sure it's done right. What do I mean when I say right? Well, for far too long now FVWM has had a major thorn in its side -- the default config *sucks* to put it bluntly. It's been a well known issue for years that it looks like a throwback to 1995 [1] and it's time to modernise it a bit. There was an aborted attempt at this by Nick Fortune and myself [2] which you should read before attempting this, as although the thread is a good five years old now, the concept in there are not. *Please read it*. I want a few things from a new config: [...] Has anyone done any more work on this? I've received nothing off-list to indicate that's been the case -- and I do not know how, if at all, this is being coordinated which is slightly annoying. Remember we couldn't agree on the 1 pixel border? I think that was the end of it. What would you think of a dialog that allowed the user to pick the border width? I think any of us could hack one of those up but it wouldn't be the ultimate solution for me. My clock, biff, and perfmeter must have narrower borders than other windows. So, dialog that lets you set border width with a style option. Only issue there is that it must be able to manage the sequence of generated style commands. Some of us thought that FvwmTheme would be the answer. It got too big for me to consider. I still like my setup which allows for a number of default themes, and does nothing if you don't ask it to. I thought the clever part of the approach I used is that each style installs a command that allows you to remove the style. Sort of object oriented in that each style comes with a constructor and destructor. A while back I made some of the default colors blue so there is a difference between 1995 and today. Not a big difference, but it is different. Also we've slightly grown the default config with a menu that can invoke XDG compliant programs. -- Dan Espen
Re: FVWM: New default configuration wanted...
Thomas Adam wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:27:51PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: Hi all, This intended to be something fairly long-running, and I personally don't wish to make the UI decisions myself, although I will keep a very close eye on the FVWM-specific aspects of a proposed config to make sure it's done right. What do I mean when I say right? Well, for far too long now FVWM has had a major thorn in its side -- the default config *sucks* to put it bluntly. It's been a well known issue for years that it looks like a throwback to 1995 [1] and it's time to modernise it a bit. There was an aborted attempt at this by Nick Fortune and myself [2] which you should read before attempting this, as although the thread is a good five years old now, the concept in there are not. *Please read it*. I want a few things from a new config: [...] Has anyone done any more work on this? I've received nothing off-list to indicate that's been the case -- and I do not know how, if at all, this is being coordinated which is slightly annoying. -- Thomas Adam I think no one in this world today really uses A) FVWM *and* B) FVWM with its default configuration. I think, because of this, a default configuration is not that important. I think, a better idea could be to leave the default config as minimal as it is, and instead of changing the default config, better invest some time into an idea of offering some example configurations for new FVWM users. The use case is this: A new FVWM user surely has his/her own opinion how FVWM should be configured. No matter how FVWM is configured by default, the users would change it anyway. This is the reason, why they use FVWM, because FVWM can be tailored to become some kind of dream GUI. When a new user runs FVWM for the first time, the FVWM main menu could contain a menu entry that opens a web browser and causes the web browser to load a web page somewhere at www.fvwm.org. This web page could contain some example configurations, and the user could choose one of them to use it as a starting point of his/her own tailered configuration. The more features you add to the default config, the more possibly unwanted features the user has to switch off. Just my two cents about this... Michael
Re: FVWM: New default configuration wanted...
I think, because of this, a default configuration is not that important. I think, a better idea could be to leave the default config as minimal as it is, and instead of changing the default config, better invest some time into an idea of offering some example configurations for new FVWM users. It's easier to remove code from a maximal config than it is to figure out how to to add functionality to a minimal config.
Re: FVWM: New default configuration wanted...
Michael Großer michael.gros...@gmx.de writes: Thomas Adam wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:27:51PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: Hi all, I think, because of this, a default configuration is not that important. I think, a better idea could be to leave the default config as minimal as it is, and instead of changing the default config, better invest some time into an idea of offering some example configurations for new FVWM users. Fvwm offers 2 sample configs. Options 1 and 2 on the built in menu. The first was my effort from a very long time ago. The second gives you a windows 95 like configuration. Perhaps more work could be done in that area. I never liked 2 ways to do this. Perhaps option 1 could do a better job of creating a taskbar like configuration. -- Dan Espen
Re: FVWM: New default configuration wanted...
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 02:36:38AM +0100, Michael Großer wrote: I think, because of this, a default configuration is not that important. I think, a better idea could be to leave the default config as minimal as it is, and instead of changing the default config, better invest some time into an idea of offering some example configurations for new FVWM users. [...] Seems you didn't read the entire thread when I originally asked this question. -- Thomas Adam -- Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not. -- Morrissey (Girl Least Likely To -- off of Viva Hate.)
Re: FVWM: New default configuration wanted...
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 05:07:07PM -0500, Dan Espen wrote: Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org writes: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:27:51PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: Hi all, This intended to be something fairly long-running, and I personally don't wish to make the UI decisions myself, although I will keep a very close eye on the FVWM-specific aspects of a proposed config to make sure it's done right. What do I mean when I say right? Well, for far too long now FVWM has had a major thorn in its side -- the default config *sucks* to put it bluntly. It's been a well known issue for years that it looks like a throwback to 1995 [1] and it's time to modernise it a bit. There was an aborted attempt at this by Nick Fortune and myself [2] which you should read before attempting this, as although the thread is a good five years old now, the concept in there are not. *Please read it*. I want a few things from a new config: [...] Has anyone done any more work on this? I've received nothing off-list to indicate that's been the case -- and I do not know how, if at all, this is being coordinated which is slightly annoying. Remember we couldn't agree on the 1 pixel border? I think that was the end of it. Well, if minutiae like that is all that was left to consider, no wonder we're done. :P What would you think of a dialog that allowed the user to pick the border width? I think any of us could hack one of those up but it wouldn't be the ultimate solution for me. My clock, biff, and perfmeter must have narrower borders than other windows. I think that's a fine idea. But remember that it's not so much about improving the tools to achieve a replacement for system.fvwm2rc/*, but rather what FVWM looks like out of the box; that's what my original thoughts on this wanted to do, and that's still what I'm after. Some of us thought that FvwmTheme would be the answer. It got too big for me to consider. Indeed. -- Thomas Adam -- Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not. -- Morrissey (Girl Least Likely To -- off of Viva Hate.)
