Re: FVWM: HEADS UP: Releasing 2.6.4 end of January
On 29 January 2012 08:08, Viktor Griph vik...@griph.se wrote: 2012/1/27 Harry portobello harryportobe...@gmail.com: we have lots of patches like adding round corners and fluxbox handels which have not been added to fvwm in long time - and why is this? why isnt the maintainer - thomas - adding these? There is no single maintainer of fvwm. It is maintained by fvwm-workers. Thomas has been putting a lot of time and effort into releasing 2.6, when no other fvwm-worker really has had the time to do so. There are several reasons as of why certain patches aren't accepted. Some of the patches affect areas of fvwm which in the long term goal should be replaced by modules. Others are unclean, and no one has been willing to clean up the code and write documentation for the patches. i get this but if no work has happened why cant we use the patches? its these delays which make users want to use another window manager so a new maintainer should listen more to this i hope And what makes you think that another fvwm-worker will have more time now, when Thomas have been mostly alone doing the all hard work for quite some time. Just because he no longer have the time either, it doesn't mean that other fvwm-workers will have more time. i hope theyd be more responsive to questions like this - and not to ignore them Harry
FVWM: money donations to the fvwm project
hi, is it possible to supply money, a donation, to the fvwm project? if i did this, where would it go, to what purpose? would i be allowed to say where it went? Harry
Re: FVWM: Want an alt-tab behaviour like KDE3
hi, 2012/1/19 Jason Weber bab...@imonk.com: Perhaps if you are open minded to tools that might be more effective at navigating windows than KDE or others do, I would also suggest taking a look at the FvwmProxy. It is a bit of a departure from the uncorrelated box-in-the-middle paradigm. It can handle your (1) and (2), but for (3), the tab order is generally spatial, not historical. For me, this is far more intuitive, but I can not assert that the same would be true for anyone else. would you mind giving an overview of how you use fvwmproxy? ive read the man page but its not clear other than how to get it show the proxy windows how you could use as an effective alt-tab replacement... im sure ive seen people use it as a fvwmtabs replacement? is that possible? Harry
Re: FVWM: when will the cvs version be released?
On 15 January 2012 20:32, Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:06:04AM +, Harry portobello wrote: hi, i like the cvs version of fvwm and its been ages since the last release [2.6.3] when will we see 2.6.4? When it's ready, which isn't now. do you publish release candidate files or a warning of release ever? and why cant you release the CVS one now? whats stopping you? if there was a release plan i wouldnt need to ask this question. Harry
FVWM: when will the cvs version be released?
hi, i like the cvs version of fvwm and its been ages since the last release [2.6.3] when will we see 2.6.4? Harry
Re: FVWM: Problem with xembed and qt
hi, On 2 September 2011 20:10, Christian Ehrlicher ch.ehrlic...@gmx.de wrote: This sounds promising - I can test it on monday and will report back then. i think i have similar problems to you - was this fixed in fvwm ever? Harry
Re: FVWM: (Icon)TitleFormat doesnt quite work like IndexedWindowName for one window
2011/10/29 Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:38:36PM +0200, Michael Großer wrote: Thomas Adam wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37:04PM +0100, Harry portobello wrote: hullo, On 19 October 2011 18:51, elliot s elliot...@gmail.com wrote: Version 2.6.3: Previous versions only added the (%t) when there was a repeated name. The new code always adds it. I worked around the %t in add_window.c by checking if count was non-zero, tho that wouldnt kill the parens, which i changed to a space in my fvwmrc. the patch with this email i have written stops the number of window if it is 1 - but what must i do to delete the brackets? [...] I'm still not going to fix this; there is nothing broken. Maybe, Harry should politely ask for a new feature? If there are people who need such kind of behaviour, then the specification could be extended with a new option, maybe a switch? It's a count -- the number of windows matching a condition. It was a bug in the original that it never put the number 1 there for a single instance. Adding in a flag is confusing and rather amusing to document why. If you *really* can't live without this, script it with FvwmEvent. How do i do this with FvwmEvent? Thanks.. Harry
Re: FVWM: (Icon)TitleFormat doesnt quite work like IndexedWindowName for one window
hullo, 2011/10/30 Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 08:09:52PM +, Harry portobello wrote: How do i do this with FvwmEvent? Thanks.. Something like: DestroyFunc CountWindow AddToFunc CountWindow + I SetEnv WindowCount 0 + I All ($[w.class], !Transient) PipeRead \ `echo SetEnv WindowCount ((WindowCount + 1))` + I PipeRead `[ $WindowCount = 1 ] echo \ WindowStyle TitleFormat %n || echo Nop` + I UnsetEnv WindowCount DestroyModuleConfig FE-tweakttformat *FE-tweakttformat: add_window CountWindow AddToFunc StartFunction I Module FvwmEvent FE-tweakttformat Change to suit your needs. I have not tested this myself. this works but is complex. can you tell me how it works? would be nice still for such things to be part of %t for titleformat Harry
Re: FVWM: (Icon)TitleFormat doesnt quite work like IndexedWindowName for one window
hullo, On 19 October 2011 18:51, elliot s elliot...@gmail.com wrote: Version 2.6.3: Previous versions only added the (%t) when there was a repeated name. The new code always adds it. I worked around the %t in add_window.c by checking if count was non-zero, tho that wouldnt kill the parens, which i changed to a space in my fvwmrc. the patch with this email i have written stops the number of window if it is 1 - but what must i do to delete the brackets? i do not like the new titleformat command because this is now very hard to do Harry patch Description: Binary data
Re: FVWM: Deprecating certain Fvwm* modules
Hi, On 22 October 2011 11:23, Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org wrote: Hello all, This has been a while coming since 2.6.0 was released. But I said at the time that since there was no longer ever going to be a split between stable/unstable, and that there was only ever rolling-stable releases, that there was now never any right time to make changes which have an impact. This is one of them. Is this really the right thing to do? Really? How did you come up with this list of depreciated modules to start with? What happens if someone with a config theyve had for ages needs to use a module youve depreciated? Will you personally have to provide the functions of that module in some way? Can you not just leave these modules alone? Harry
Re: FVWM: It's a matter of explaining [Re: ... list attitudes and unveiling the person behind email
Hi! Wowzer! This is one long email, thanks Michael. A lot of the discussions you raise here speak for themselves so I wont reply to all of them. 2011/9/1 Michael Großer michael.gros...@gmx.de: * When some people feel confused by some kind of attitude in the fvwm community, then perhaps they are not patient enough anyway, maybe they are not interested about the difference between fvwm on one side and KDE/Gnome on the People will only change if they want to - and despite having this pointed out to him, Thomas remains silent so it is hard to know if hes reading this and taking it in or just ignoring it. Ive tried speaking with him off the list but haven't had a reply - and that was before, when asking about advice for this article I'm writing. Sometimes the silence speaks more words of a coward than anything, and that leaves me with uneasy feelings - because typically those people will wait until the dust has settled and then go back to their OLD ways of being brash, until the next time theyre challenged and they'll fall silent, unfortunately as in this example, seems to be the case. Its the typically Prima Donna situation: suffer the intolerable because they're too valuable and let them get away with whatever they want to. I assume there is a coherence between the product of fvwm and the attitude in the fvwm community. * An idea that could make a difference for new people who think about joining the fvwm community could be this: - Someone should write an introduction for newbies and put this introduction onto www.fvwm.org. This introduction should: - EXPLAIN the difference between fvwm and other environments So you're saying the attitudes of people working on fvwm is due to differences with other environments, like KDE? Interesting idea. - EXPLAIN the prevalent honest attitude in the fvwm community But this masks the problem to some level, does it not? - EXPLAIN the priciple of EXPLAINING and GRADUALLY UNDERSTANDING * (when two people are in a dispute, then the chance to elegantly solve the dispute increases dramatically when both persons try to explain and understand each other) - invite people to apply this principle when they feel confused by something Do you have good examples of this, Michael? And now, I have a job for you, Harry Portobello. Do you want to to something really useful for fvwm? Then, please: * Create an introduction for newbies like I described above. I'll try to do this but it might be a bit beyond me Perhaps we can talk away from this list? If you have the time? Harry
Re: FVWM: Writing an article on fvwm - request for opinions welcomed
On 8 August 2011 01:13, Harry portobello harryportobe...@gmail.com wrote: Hello fvwmers, I'm writing an article for the Linux Magazine about fvwm. Given the rise of GNOME3 and Unity, there seems to be a trend of people turning away from their desktop environments for simpler solutions. I've been using fvwm for many years and thought that since there's been a stable release of fvwm recently, would be a wonderful time to put fvwm in the limelight. I wanted to let people know that this hasn't been abandoned! Thanks to everyone who has sent me through their thoughts. I know I won't have responded to everyone individually but I am taking all the information given under consideration and will update the list with further developments! Harry
Re: FVWM: Writing an article on fvwm - request for opinions welcomed
Hi, On 8 August 2011 01:13, Harry portobello harryportobe...@gmail.com wrote: Hello fvwmers, Does anyone have a contact addr for Thomas Adam? Ive been told he's the person to talk to about fvwm's direction??? Thanks! Harry
FVWM: Writing an article on fvwm - request for opinions welcomed
Hello fvwmers, I'm writing an article for the Linux Magazine about fvwm. Given the rise of GNOME3 and Unity, there seems to be a trend of people turning away from their desktop environments for simpler solutions. I've been using fvwm for many years and thought that since there's been a stable release of fvwm recently, would be a wonderful time to put fvwm in the limelight. So might I ask anyone who has suggestions or knows of who I might be able to interview via email, to let me know? It can be devs and users alike with opinions. If there are any devs though, that would be handy to get first-hand info. about where fvwm is going. TIA, and I welcome people's feedback! Harry
