Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
On 8/2/24 11:55, Chris Bennett wrote: How many here have grey beards? I hope "somebody" (without grey beard but with a lot of time) makes a sane X11 emulation layer. On the other hand, OpenBSD is alive and has it's own heavily patched Xorg called Xenocara and they most likely won't let that go. So maybe porting Xenocara to linux is a better way to go. Nik I cannot imagine OpenBSD will give up it's special Xenocara. OpenBSD kept it's own specially patched Apache 1.39 for years to keep Apache within the base OS. The newer Apache 2 license was unacceptable for base OS requirements. I cannot confirm this, but rumor has it that Theo, the forker of OpenBSD from NetBSD uses FVWM, so I would bet that even though Wayland is being brought in, Xorg as Xenocara will be here to stay. That would not surprise me at all. OpenBSD's FVWM is the v1 release of FVWM for what it's worth (although fvwm2 was in ports, probably fvwm3 now). There's a (understandably) very strong preference for MIT/BSD licensed code in OpenBSD's base. I like FVWM because I can pretty much do whatever I want to take the time to think up and make it happen. I just can't do that with the other WM's I like. Also, it's lightweight, which is a must. Indeed. I don't mind some of the applications from the big desktop environments, but the major Wayland-enabled desktops themselves are inflexible and bloated. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 07:30:05PM +0100, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > Anno domini 2024 Sun, 4 Feb 01:14:21 +0100 > Martin Cermak scripsit: > > On Sun 2024-02-04 09:51 , Stuart Longland wrote: > > [...] > > > > IMHO for FVWM to survive, the FVWM community needs to focus on > > wayland. And start from scratch... I wish this happens. > > How many here have grey beards? I hope "somebody" (without grey beard but > with a lot of time) makes a sane X11 emulation layer. On the other hand, > OpenBSD is alive and has it's own heavily patched Xorg called Xenocara and > they most likely won't let that go. So maybe porting Xenocara to linux is a > better way to go. > > Nik I cannot imagine OpenBSD will give up it's special Xenocara. OpenBSD kept it's own specially patched Apache 1.39 for years to keep Apache within the base OS. The newer Apache 2 license was unacceptable for base OS requirements. I cannot confirm this, but rumor has it that Theo, the forker of OpenBSD from NetBSD uses FVWM, so I would bet that even though Wayland is being brought in, Xorg as Xenocara will be here to stay. I like FVWM because I can pretty much do whatever I want to take the time to think up and make it happen. I just can't do that with the other WM's I like. Also, it's lightweight, which is a must. -- Regards, Chris Bennett "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." George Orwell - 1984
Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 07:30:05PM +0100, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: Anno domini 2024 Sun, 4 Feb 01:14:21 +0100 Martin Cermak scripsit: On Sun 2024-02-04 09:51 , Stuart Longland wrote: [...] IMHO for FVWM to survive, the FVWM community needs to focus on wayland. And start from scratch... I wish this happens. How many here have grey beards? I hope "somebody" (without grey beard but with a lot of time) makes a sane X11 emulation layer. On the other hand, OpenBSD is alive and has it's own heavily patched Xorg called Xenocara and they most likely won't let that go. So maybe porting Xenocara to linux is a better way to go. Nik Actually I am hoping all the BSDs get together and maintain Xenocara. IIRC, Xenocara is maintained by taking patches from Xorg and making adjustments. So once/if those Xorg patches stop, Xenocara will be on its own. If the BSDs do this, then it may be possible to port to Linux :) John
Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
I'm going to document my own hatred for Wayland here, not that it will make any difference to its unstoppable adoption and the subsequent likely demise of FVWM. Note that I'm not an expert on the subject(s) nor do I have the time or inclination to become one as I'm 100% convinced that what I don't know, or any educated rebuttals to my arguments, won't change my overall conclusions. Wayland is the latest and greatest step in the destruction of the basic design concepts that are why UNIX, 50+ years after its inception, is the world's dominant operating system. It completely misses the point of separating functionality into independent and interchangeable software components. I have read the Wayland FAQ for years about why X11 needs to be replaced, and it boils down to exactly two points: 1. X11 is old. 2. It supports stippled line drawing which nobody uses any more. OK ... 1) what's wrong with that, and 2) update the API to deprecate un- and under-used functionality. Integrate the WM into the graphics server? What's next -- integrate the server into the kernel? Impossible you say, Linus would never accept that? Yeah, after years of him hating on C++ he accepted Rust because it's memory-safe. (Insist on smart pointers in C++. Problem solved.) I'll always venerate Linus for his contribution to computing -- the Herculean accomplishment of cracking Intel's insane X86 architecture to turn the toy Minix into a full-fledged virtual memory UNIX implementation -- but 30 years of being worshipped as a demigod might have gone to his head. (He recently demonstrated in one of his famous flamings, justified because the pull request in question broke the kernel, that he doesn't know how to read a stack trace.) I need FVWM, and therefor by extension X11 as has been documented here, because nothing else supports my customized desktop UI which allows me to be twice as productive as the alternatives. Not so much the visual look (an extension of MWM, perfect) but the bindings of the three mouse buttons, and most importantly the ability to iconify applications to specific positions on the desktop. All of the Gnomes/KDEs/M$Windows/Apples with their taskbars and iconboxes (in FVWM terms) require me to search by name or icon glyph through a constantly changing arrangement instead of my intuitive muscle memory moving the mouse to a known place on the screen and clicking there. I don't even have to look. Remote X11 rendering between two networked machines? I guess the Wayland designers didn't understand that concept. Either they don't care about high-end users in a professional environment, or they're only targeting the 99.9% demographic of casual users. "A GUI application? You mean a web browser connected to a cloud server, right?" I've long suspected that all of these visionaries leading us forward from the same boring old software technologies must have secret closets full of black turtleneck shirts, Levis blue jeans, and white running shoes in preparation for when they become the next Steve Jobs -- wealthy, famous, and beloved by all humanity. See GNOME 3 for a precedent. I'd like nothing more than to see a "Rebel Alliance" Linux distro that maintains X11, GTK and Qt, System V Init, config files without D-Bus, and everything else that already works (mostly) perfectly (plus any needed fixes/updates/improvements). But the huge amount of effort required (50+ highly capable and committed developers) probably means it won't ever happen. And I'm far too over-committed with my own open source projects to be able to contribute. "Retro" distributions already exist, but as Thomas astutely points out, the nail in the coffin will be when Firefox and Chromium stop working on them. You can have all the Konquerors, Vivaldis, Operas, GNOME Webs, etc. you want, but you'll eventually run into e-commerce, news, and governmental websites -- all required to function in current global society -- that fatally inform you your browser isn't supported and to come back when you're using something else. I suppose I'll hang on to FVWM/X11/etc as long as I can for my real work, probably having to add a separate/dedicated "modern" Linux box with Wayland and all the rest for online tasks. Maybe they'll keep `scp` running for the rest of my natural life so I'll at least be able to move important documents over to the "real" machine for inspection, analysis, and archiving. Sign me, Disgusted
Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
Anno domini 2024 Sun, 4 Feb 01:14:21 +0100 Martin Cermak scripsit: > On Sun 2024-02-04 09:51 , Stuart Longland wrote: > [...] > > IMHO for FVWM to survive, the FVWM community needs to focus on > wayland. And start from scratch... I wish this happens. How many here have grey beards? I hope "somebody" (without grey beard but with a lot of time) makes a sane X11 emulation layer. On the other hand, OpenBSD is alive and has it's own heavily patched Xorg called Xenocara and they most likely won't let that go. So maybe porting Xenocara to linux is a better way to go. Nik > > m. > > > > -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA, CIA ...
Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
- Are people using FVWM for its looks? (Themability) Looks/functionallity: I want the MWM look/functionallity. Yes, I too like a simple mwm-like look, but even more I like the complete and easy customizability. I think there are proofs on the net of completely different looks. AND functionality ! It's not just a matter of changing a wallpaper. - Are people using FVWM for just being light-weight? YES! I want as lightweight a window manager as posible. I also do appreciate a lightweight wm (it usually runs at 1% CPU), or better I deprecate how heavy are some DE like KDE. - Are people using FVWM for its binding/scripting support? Yes, I added some of my own widgets, see reference below. And I would add a fourth reason ]] - I use FVWM because its customization (even if it has a steep learning curve) is all concentrated in a single text file, so with a minimum of self-documentation one will always know where to go (unless those DE with infinite branches of GUIs) These discussion instigated me to do sometyhing I lept pending for a couple of years, i.e. add some new screenshots to my FVWM doc page referring to my current fvwrc on Ubuntu, which adds to a pluridecennial experience http://sax.iasf-milano.inaf.it/~lucio/WWW/Opinions/window.html -- Cosi' per li gran savi si confessa / Che la Fenice muore e poi rinasce, / Quando al cinquecentesimo anno appressa. (Dante, Inferno, XXIV, 106-108) Thus the great wise testify / That the Phoenix dies and is born again, / When the five-hundredth year gets close.
Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
On Sun 2024-02-04 09:51 , Stuart Longland wrote: > So either some of us need to step up and get familiar with how X11 works > (unlikely, it seems like a monumental task)… or we need to "pack our bags", > so to speak It hurts, but my sense is that the above is right. IMHO the distributions effectively need a vibrant community around a project to pick it up. It can hardly be a one man show. The denial will start with security issues, as usual... IMHO for FVWM to survive, the FVWM community needs to focus on wayland. And start from scratch... I wish this happens. m.
Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
At Sun, 4 Feb 2024 09:51:45 +1000 Stuart Longland 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
Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
On 4/2/24 08:05, Thomas Adam wrote: Wayland is not Xlib. I have been, in my spare time, looking at the XServer code and all the other libraries surrounding it, and looking at open MRs on Xorg's Gitlab instance -- which means I am going to help keep XServer alive -- which by extension means fvwm. For all the while that continues, when you hear about widget libraries such as GTK and QT dropping support for XLib, that's the time to worry -- as there could, in theory, be a time when Firefox or Chromium no longer run under X directly, without forcing a Wayland compositor. That's the real nail-in-the-coffin. So, I'll keep fvwm alive for as long as I can, but I really can't see how there could ever be a Wayland compositor. I appreciate your efforts in trying to keep FVWM alive. It has a long history… and so far, I've not found a more flexible window manager. FVWM was always my go-to when supporting Gentoo/MIPS, because I could get FVWM built very quickly due to its Xlib base. The others required me to build a GUI toolkit like Qt or GTK+, which meant no X11 environment for a lot longer. I've tried a couple of Wayland compositors, they seem to be at two extremes of the user experience space: either full-featured (and quite bloated) desktops such as Gnome or KDE Plasma… or extremely minimal tiling affairs. Nothing that is "in between" like FVWM, which works just as gracefully on my relatively new Ryzen 7 5800U laptop as it does the 14-year old Atom N450 netbook. I tried Plasma on the latter, I don't think I need to describe how it went. On the laptop I'm typing this on now (Panasonic CF-53; 10 years old now), Plasma worked okay, but it still "felt" slower, and a lot of things I was used to were missing. Window management is so much more than just drawing a box around a window and plonking it somewhere on a screen. My understanding for the Wayland push is that the X11 driver architecture was written around assumptions about video hardware that existed circa 1986~1996 which almost universally were built around CRT sync hardware. That assumption is starting to fall apart with some of the modern video hardware out there that outputs a digital packet-based stream via HDMI or DisplayPort. Apple Silicon hardware in particular, seems to bear little resemblance to what came before, and hence the Asahi Linux team decided they weren't going to support X11. While there are people still working on X11, many of them are starting to tire of the work because it's specialist code that requires a deep understanding of both X11 and graphic card hardware to be effective. So either some of us need to step up and get familiar with how X11 works (unlikely, it seems like a monumental task)… or we need to "pack our bags", so to speak, and move to a new world: FVWM on Wayland is basically going to be a re-write. Can we re-use certain modules to emulate what we had? I don't know. A big part of FVWM was its script-ability. It could hook various events, then you the user, could program it to automate what happened next using a domain-specific language. e.g. I have FVWM here set up so when I hit the "Super" key; a menu pops up. If it's on a window, the menu that pops up has window operations up the top (Close, Move/Resize, Maximise, Split…) followed by a "Quick Launch" (which lets me quickly access specific applications) and access to the root menu (to reach everything else). On a non-window, the menu that appears has just the latter parts (there's no window to operate on). So if I want to make the current window occupy the right-half of the screen, I hit Super, L (for Split), 2 (for Half), R (for Right). If I want it the lower-right quadrant, it'd be Super, L, 4, R (bottom right). A single keystroke brings up a menu tree, then keyboard mnemonics on menu items lets me navigate that menu to a specific item; which calls FVWM actions do the rest. I'm not sure how others use FVWM, but this is how I use it, and I find it is a huge productivity enhancement. I'm not bothered much about how it looks (I do insist on a title bar: my windows look like MWM), but a big part is being able to move things around. 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) - Are people using FVWM for its binding/scripting support? - Are people using FVWM for just being light-weight? 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. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I
