Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
On 6 July 2014 09:39, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote: >> On 5 July 2014 16:05, Olivier Galibert wrote: >> > I found that setting up the monitors with xrandr then restarting fvwm >> > from the menu works rather well. So screen configuration is well >> > taken into account. OTOH, it seems that having fvwm pick it up >> > automatically would require major surgery. The setup is so not >> > dynamic it's not funny. >> >> i know fvwm can do this - but my main point is mvwm not only uses >> xrandr but makes the pages and desktops per monitor as well. my >> question is will this functionality ever hit fvwm? > > You could submit a patch? i'm not a developer and wouldn't know what to do - which is why i am asking if someone else does know and could look at doing it? Or point me in the right direction Michael
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote: > On 5 July 2014 16:05, Olivier Galibert wrote: > > I found that setting up the monitors with xrandr then restarting fvwm > > from the menu works rather well. So screen configuration is well > > taken into account. OTOH, it seems that having fvwm pick it up > > automatically would require major surgery. The setup is so not > > dynamic it's not funny. > > i know fvwm can do this - but my main point is mvwm not only uses > xrandr but makes the pages and desktops per monitor as well. my > question is will this functionality ever hit fvwm? You could submit a patch? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
On 5 July 2014 16:05, Olivier Galibert wrote: > I found that setting up the monitors with xrandr then restarting fvwm > from the menu works rather well. So screen configuration is well > taken into account. OTOH, it seems that having fvwm pick it up > automatically would require major surgery. The setup is so not > dynamic it's not funny. i know fvwm can do this - but my main point is mvwm not only uses xrandr but makes the pages and desktops per monitor as well. my question is will this functionality ever hit fvwm? Michael
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
I found that setting up the monitors with xrandr then restarting fvwm from the menu works rather well. So screen configuration is well taken into account. OTOH, it seems that having fvwm pick it up automatically would require major surgery. The setup is so not dynamic it's not funny. OG. On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Michael Treibton wrote: > On 26 May 2014 17:18, lee wrote: >> lee writes: >> >>> Thomas Adam writes: >>> So I don't want idle speculation or wonder to permeate the work I'm doing, the only thing FVWM will benefit from this will be bug-fixes, and I've already identified a few memory leaks. It's nice for FVWM in a way, it's being audited for free as a result of this work. >>> >>> Is the code currently in the repo on github "useful"? "Useful" would >>> mean that one could compile it and use it instead of fvwm. >> >> So I cloned and compiled it, and it works --- even seems to be a lot >> faster than the fvwm version in Fedora. >> >> However, I have >> >>FvwmRearrange -tile -a -mn 2 -noraise 0 0 100 100 >> >> in a menu, and it doesn`t work anymore in that it doesn`t seem to do >> anything. Is this feature disabled/removed in mvwm? > > I think this module has gone now. > > one thing i am interested to know is if we will be seeing the monitor > support in mvwm put back into fvwm. is anyone interested in putting > back changes to fvwm? i thought that was the point of mvwm? > > seperate monitors has been something i've wanted for ages and it seems > to be working for me - does it work for anyone else? > > Michael >
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
On 26 May 2014 17:18, lee wrote: > lee writes: > >> Thomas Adam writes: >> >>> So I don't want idle speculation or wonder to permeate the work I'm doing, >>> the only thing FVWM will benefit from this will be bug-fixes, and I've >>> already identified a few memory leaks. It's nice for FVWM in a way, it's >>> being audited for free as a result of this work. >> >> Is the code currently in the repo on github "useful"? "Useful" would >> mean that one could compile it and use it instead of fvwm. > > So I cloned and compiled it, and it works --- even seems to be a lot > faster than the fvwm version in Fedora. > > However, I have > >FvwmRearrange -tile -a -mn 2 -noraise 0 0 100 100 > > in a menu, and it doesn`t work anymore in that it doesn`t seem to do > anything. Is this feature disabled/removed in mvwm? I think this module has gone now. one thing i am interested to know is if we will be seeing the monitor support in mvwm put back into fvwm. is anyone interested in putting back changes to fvwm? i thought that was the point of mvwm? seperate monitors has been something i've wanted for ages and it seems to be working for me - does it work for anyone else? Michael
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
lee writes: > Thomas Adam writes: > >> So I don't want idle speculation or wonder to permeate the work I'm doing, >> the only thing FVWM will benefit from this will be bug-fixes, and I've >> already identified a few memory leaks. It's nice for FVWM in a way, it's >> being audited for free as a result of this work. > > Is the code currently in the repo on github "useful"? "Useful" would > mean that one could compile it and use it instead of fvwm. So I cloned and compiled it, and it works --- even seems to be a lot faster than the fvwm version in Fedora. However, I have FvwmRearrange -tile -a -mn 2 -noraise 0 0 100 100 in a menu, and it doesn`t work anymore in that it doesn`t seem to do anything. Is this feature disabled/removed in mvwm? -- Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
Thomas Adam writes: > So I don't want idle speculation or wonder to permeate the work I'm doing, > the only thing FVWM will benefit from this will be bug-fixes, and I've > already identified a few memory leaks. It's nice for FVWM in a way, it's > being audited for free as a result of this work. Is the code currently in the repo on github "useful"? "Useful" would mean that one could compile it and use it instead of fvwm. I`m all for removing cruft and better efficiency, and I appreciate your effort and would be happy if I could help. -- Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
On 12 May 2014 12:08, Martin Cermak wrote: > So, what's the relationship between your aforementioned private > FVWM cleanup effort [1] and wayland? Absolutely none. -- Thomas Adam
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
On 11 May 2014 17:57, E Frank Ball III wrote: > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 02:28:19PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote: > > > > FVWM is still an active project as you can see it on the mailing lists > > but it's true that there are many parts in the code which could be > > removed but that's not so easy. FVWM is over 20 years old and many things > > were growed over the time and interlaced with each other. > > > How will the new display managers (if that's the correct term) such as > Wayland and Mir effect fvwm? Does it have to be ported to Wayland to work? Yes, FVWM would have to be a Wayland Compositor to be able to work correctly. Good luck with that. If I were you, I'd let the FUD die down about Wayland and concentrate on fluffier things. -- Thomas Adam
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. Mai 2014 um 18:57 Uhr > Von: "E Frank Ball III" > An: fvwm > Betreff: Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm? > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 02:28:19PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote: > > > > FVWM is still an active project as you can see it on the mailing lists > > but it's true that there are many parts in the code which could be > > removed but that's not so easy. FVWM is over 20 years old and many things > > were growed over the time and interlaced with each other. > > > How will the new display managers (if that's the correct term) such as > Wayland and Mir effect fvwm? Does it have to be ported to Wayland to work? > >E Frank Ball fra...@frankb.us I'm also deeply interested in the answer of that question.
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 02:28:19PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote: > > FVWM is still an active project as you can see it on the mailing lists > but it's true that there are many parts in the code which could be > removed but that's not so easy. FVWM is over 20 years old and many things > were growed over the time and interlaced with each other. How will the new display managers (if that's the correct term) such as Wayland and Mir effect fvwm? Does it have to be ported to Wayland to work? E Frank Ball fra...@frankb.us
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
Stuart Longland wrote: > On 11/05/14 19:39, Michael Treibton wrote: >> I recently read this: >> >> https://plus.google.com/+ThomasAdamXteddy/posts/H5dV9UM7Pbe >> >> And wondered what the status of fvwm is for definite, especially now >> one of the main developers has abandoned it. >> >> What do others think? FVWM is still an active project as you can see it on the mailing lists but it's true that there are many parts in the code which could be removed but that's not so easy. FVWM is over 20 years old and many things were growed over the time and interlaced with each other. If Thomas wants to clean up FVWM why not. It is free software and it is his good right to do this. But this doesn't mean that FVWM is dead. > It worries me a bit too. Don't worry. FVWM has a very active community. See - Mailing lists - Forums - Projects (Fvwm-Crystal, Fvwm-Nightshade) -- Thomas -- -- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." -- Albert Einstein
Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
On 11/05/14 19:39, Michael Treibton wrote: > I recently read this: > > https://plus.google.com/+ThomasAdamXteddy/posts/H5dV9UM7Pbe > > And wondered what the status of fvwm is for definite, especially now > one of the main developers has abandoned it. > > What do others think? It worries me a bit too. I started with FVWM when I started using Linux in 1996. I've used a lot of window managers and desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, OLVWM, WindowMaker, AfterStep...), including commercial ones (Sun CDE, SGI 4DWM, SCO PMWM, MacOS X, Microsoft Windows, QNX Neutrino, IBM OS/2). FVWM has been the closest, close enough that I haven't gone and tried to do my own thing. That isn't to say I don't have my own ideas. Seeing others' blunders into UI horrors has taught me a few mistakes I won't repeat. Different desktops bring with them various ideas, some worth leaving behind, others worth looking into. Some of my ideas are documented here (after I stop bagging out Microsoft): http://stuartl.longlandclan.yi.org/blog/2014/04/12/user-interfaces/ It's the sand irritating the oyster that produces the pearl. I think these few grains in my abode aren't quite enough to get me annoyed just yet. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
Hi, I recently read this: https://plus.google.com/+ThomasAdamXteddy/posts/H5dV9UM7Pbe And wondered what the status of fvwm is for definite, especially now one of the main developers has abandoned it. What do others think? Michael
