Re: FVWM: fvwm development

2012-12-01 Thread Dominique Michel 
Le Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:33:00 -0500,
Tom Horsley horsley1...@gmail.com a écrit :

 On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:06:36 +0100
 Adam Sjøgren wrote:
 
  I think it would be much more accurate to call FVWM mature.
 
 An even better word is useful (unlike many linux products under
 frenetic active development by folks who believe change is always
 good no matter how stupid it is :-).
 

I agree, GNU/linux is following a dangerous path those days,
I never understood the need for pulseaudio when we can do the same with
alsa + jack + the snd-aloop module, and that with a constant sound
latency, which is a must for any serious audio work.

I will not even talk about a completely idiotic
take_my_freedom_ware.tm and break_my_good_working_system.tm like
policykit. That was the drop that made me to begun to look for
alternatives.

Dominique

-- 
We have the heroes we deserve.

Re: FVWM: fvwm development

2012-11-30 Thread Thomas Adam 
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 02:28:16AM -0800, Jason Timrod wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Is it true that fvwm has no maintainer now? if so, is fvwm still being

No.  For years, FVWN has had no *one* maintainer *by design*.  Any one with
a commit bit is effectively able to commit back.

-- Thomas Adam

Re: FVWM: fvwm development

2012-11-30 Thread Tom Horsley 
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:06:36 +0100
Adam Sjøgren wrote:

 I think it would be much more accurate to call FVWM mature.

An even better word is useful (unlike many linux products under
frenetic active development by folks who believe change is always
good no matter how stupid it is :-).