Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
Pau wrote: Hi 2008/8/11 Owain Ainsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 03:11:58PM +0200, Pau wrote: Hi, I have had a look at cwm today. It looks nice. This is OpenBSD 4.3 GENERIC#698 i386 I have found out that when I redefine term in .calmwm with a symbolic link to xterm with a certain font, that geometry etc, pressing C-M-Enter spawns a new terminal, the one I redefined but, then, when trying to use the nice ``Ssh to'' dialog with M-. I simply get "my" xterm after the dialog but no connexion. That is what .Xdefaults or similar is for... XTerm*termName: xterm-xfree86 XTerm*background: black XTerm*foreground: grey XTerm*jumpScroll: true XTerm*multiScroll: true XTerm*scrollBar: false XTerm*metaSendsEscape: true XTerm*faceName: Bitstream Vera Sans Mono XTerm*faceSize: 7 (yes, those are what I use) yes, I agree. But .Xdefaults is not quite trivial to understand; e.g. how do you pass the option to receive console output? What is the equivalent of -C on the command line for .Xdefaults? Something I also do not understand, most likely due to my abhorrent ignorance, is why all man pages here /usr/X11R6/man/ are not installed per default. man xterm yields nothing. If I am supposed to do it on my own, I'd appreciate a hint how to do it. I don't see any Makefile there. That means that all these programmes: FvwmAuto.0 FvwmIconMan.0 FvwmScroll.0koi8rxterm.0xterm.0 FvwmBacker.0FvwmIdent.0 FvwmTalk.0 resize.0xtsscale.0 FvwmBanner.0FvwmM4.0FvwmWinList.0 ssh-askpass.0 xvctl.0 FvwmButtons.0 FvwmPager.0 cwm.0 uxterm.0 FvwmCpp.0 FvwmRearrange.0 fvwm.0 xidle.0 FvwmForm.0 FvwmSave.0 glxgears.0 xpmroot.0 FvwmIconBox.0 FvwmSaveDesk.0 glxinfo.0 xsystrace.0 do not have man pages after a default installation (cwm among them) elachistos(p7)| ls /usr/X11R6/man/~ (16:54) cat1 cat4 cat7 man3 man5 whatis.db cat3 cat5 man1 man4 man7 elachistos(p7)| ls /usr/X11R6/man/cat1~ (16:56) FvwmAuto.0 FvwmIconMan.0 FvwmScroll.0koi8rxterm.0xterm.0 FvwmBacker.0FvwmIdent.0 FvwmTalk.0 resize.0xtsscale.0 FvwmBanner.0FvwmM4.0FvwmWinList.0 ssh-askpass.0 xvctl.0 FvwmButtons.0 FvwmPager.0 cwm.0 uxterm.0 FvwmCpp.0 FvwmRearrange.0 fvwm.0 xidle.0 FvwmForm.0 FvwmSave.0 glxgears.0 xpmroot.0 FvwmIconBox.0 FvwmSaveDesk.0 glxinfo.0 xsystrace.0 elachistos(p7)| man xterm ~ (16:56) man: no entry for xterm in the manual. diff /tmp/man2.conf /etc/man.conf yields nothing. /tmp/man2.conf is from an obsd 4.2 box in which man xterm works well... Any help would be appreciated. Pau Hi Pau, Something is wrong with your path or MANPATH, as /usr/X11R6/man/cat1/xterm.0 is the man page for xterm. man -m or -M might help. HTH Fred
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
Hi 2008/8/11 Owain Ainsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 03:11:58PM +0200, Pau wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have had a look at cwm today. It looks nice. This is >> >> OpenBSD 4.3 GENERIC#698 i386 >> >> I have found out that when I redefine term in .calmwm with a symbolic >> link to xterm with a certain font, that geometry etc, pressing >> C-M-Enter spawns a new terminal, the one I redefined but, then, when >> trying to use the nice ``Ssh to'' dialog with M-. I simply get "my" >> xterm after the dialog but no connexion. > > That is what .Xdefaults or similar is for... > > XTerm*termName: xterm-xfree86 > XTerm*background: black > XTerm*foreground: grey > XTerm*jumpScroll: true > XTerm*multiScroll: true > XTerm*scrollBar: false > XTerm*metaSendsEscape: true > XTerm*faceName: Bitstream Vera Sans Mono > XTerm*faceSize: 7 > > (yes, those are what I use) yes, I agree. But .Xdefaults is not quite trivial to understand; e.g. how do you pass the option to receive console output? What is the equivalent of -C on the command line for .Xdefaults? Something I also do not understand, most likely due to my abhorrent ignorance, is why all man pages here /usr/X11R6/man/ are not installed per default. man xterm yields nothing. If I am supposed to do it on my own, I'd appreciate a hint how to do it. I don't see any Makefile there. That means that all these programmes: FvwmAuto.0 FvwmIconMan.0 FvwmScroll.0koi8rxterm.0xterm.0 FvwmBacker.0FvwmIdent.0 FvwmTalk.0 resize.0xtsscale.0 FvwmBanner.0FvwmM4.0FvwmWinList.0 ssh-askpass.0 xvctl.0 FvwmButtons.0 FvwmPager.0 cwm.0 uxterm.0 FvwmCpp.0 FvwmRearrange.0 fvwm.0 xidle.0 FvwmForm.0 FvwmSave.0 glxgears.0 xpmroot.0 FvwmIconBox.0 FvwmSaveDesk.0 glxinfo.0 xsystrace.0 do not have man pages after a default installation (cwm among them) elachistos(p7)| ls /usr/X11R6/man/~ (16:54) cat1 cat4 cat7 man3 man5 whatis.db cat3 cat5 man1 man4 man7 elachistos(p7)| ls /usr/X11R6/man/cat1~ (16:56) FvwmAuto.0 FvwmIconMan.0 FvwmScroll.0koi8rxterm.0xterm.0 FvwmBacker.0FvwmIdent.0 FvwmTalk.0 resize.0xtsscale.0 FvwmBanner.0FvwmM4.0FvwmWinList.0 ssh-askpass.0 xvctl.0 FvwmButtons.0 FvwmPager.0 cwm.0 uxterm.0 FvwmCpp.0 FvwmRearrange.0 fvwm.0 xidle.0 FvwmForm.0 FvwmSave.0 glxgears.0 xpmroot.0 FvwmIconBox.0 FvwmSaveDesk.0 glxinfo.0 xsystrace.0 elachistos(p7)| man xterm ~ (16:56) man: no entry for xterm in the manual. diff /tmp/man2.conf /etc/man.conf yields nothing. /tmp/man2.conf is from an obsd 4.2 box in which man xterm works well... Any help would be appreciated. Pau > > Anyway, don't use symlinks here in any case. > > command term"xterm -fa 'Bitstream Vera Serif'" > > works fine, including with the ssh-to dialogue. > >> >> virtual desktops would be nice, but I'll just take what they give me, >> this is not a wish-list > > a combination of sticky mode, autogroup and a patch to make commands for > "switch to group X and hide the rest" available would emulate virtual > desktops fine. I've not written the patch since i've currently got other > more important things to do. Anyone who wants to write such a patch is > welcome, else I'll get around to it eventually. > > Cheers, > -0- > > -- > He had occasional flashes of silence that made his conversation > perfectly delightful. >-- Sydney Smith
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 03:11:58PM +0200, Pau wrote: > Hi, > > I have had a look at cwm today. It looks nice. This is > > OpenBSD 4.3 GENERIC#698 i386 > > I have found out that when I redefine term in .calmwm with a symbolic > link to xterm with a certain font, that geometry etc, pressing > C-M-Enter spawns a new terminal, the one I redefined but, then, when > trying to use the nice ``Ssh to'' dialog with M-. I simply get "my" > xterm after the dialog but no connexion. That is what .Xdefaults or similar is for... XTerm*termName: xterm-xfree86 XTerm*background: black XTerm*foreground: grey XTerm*jumpScroll: true XTerm*multiScroll: true XTerm*scrollBar: false XTerm*metaSendsEscape: true XTerm*faceName: Bitstream Vera Sans Mono XTerm*faceSize: 7 (yes, those are what I use) Anyway, don't use symlinks here in any case. command term"xterm -fa 'Bitstream Vera Serif'" works fine, including with the ssh-to dialogue. > > virtual desktops would be nice, but I'll just take what they give me, > this is not a wish-list a combination of sticky mode, autogroup and a patch to make commands for "switch to group X and hide the rest" available would emulate virtual desktops fine. I've not written the patch since i've currently got other more important things to do. Anyone who wants to write such a patch is welcome, else I'll get around to it eventually. Cheers, -0- -- He had occasional flashes of silence that made his conversation perfectly delightful. -- Sydney Smith
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
Hi, I have had a look at cwm today. It looks nice. This is OpenBSD 4.3 GENERIC#698 i386 I have found out that when I redefine term in .calmwm with a symbolic link to xterm with a certain font, that geometry etc, pressing C-M-Enter spawns a new terminal, the one I redefined but, then, when trying to use the nice ``Ssh to'' dialog with M-. I simply get "my" xterm after the dialog but no connexion. ? virtual desktops would be nice, but I'll just take what they give me, this is not a wish-list Pau 2008/6/18 Daniel B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Nicolas Legrand wrote: > >> "Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in >> > cwm. >> > >> > Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a >> > beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in >> > screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. >> > >> > Any hints? Thank you. >> >> I had the same problem on a very old iMac. It was the only computer >> who had the same problem you have. I could remap the keybindings in >> .cwmrc, but none of the ASCII characters could be used in a >> keybinding. Anyway I found a work around five minutes ago. >> >> The big difference with this one and the others is I have a xorg.conf >> on it with those rules for keyboard : >> >> Section "InputDevice" >> Identifier "Keyboard0" >> Driver "keyboard" >> Option "Protocol" "standard" >> Option "XkbRules" "xorg" >> Option "XkbModel" "macintosh" >> Option "XkbLayout" "fr" >> EndSection >> >> I launch X, launch a xterm, I don't have the keybindings with fr >> layout. I usualy use the dvorak layout (don't ask), I type 'setxkbmap >> dvorak' and I don't have the keybindings. I try to comment all lines >> appart 'Identifier' and 'Driver' and add 'Option "XkbLayout" "dvorak"' >> and I don't have the keybindings. >> >> Finally I just wrote the .xinitrc I wrote on my others machines : >> >> setxkbmap dvorak& >> cwm >> >> And it works. Going back to fr with 'setxkbmap fr' don't work, going >> back to dvorak layout after and keybindings still work. Writing fr in >> place of dvorak in .xinitrc make keybindings works for fr, but if I >> change keybindings to dvorak after cwm is launch it doesn't work >> anymore. >> >> >> Change your layout in .xinitrc before launching cwm, don't change your >> layout after : that's my workaround. Understanding truly "why?" is >> yet beyond my skills (thought I'd be interested in answers). I hope >> this description will tip people with skills and knowledge on real >> solutions :-). > > Actually I lost the repeat function, e.g. to delete a word I can't just > press and hold backspace. It's pretty much a detail, but I miss it. > > Thank you.
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Nicolas Legrand wrote: > "Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in > > cwm. > > > > Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a > > beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in > > screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. > > > > Any hints? Thank you. > > I had the same problem on a very old iMac. It was the only computer > who had the same problem you have. I could remap the keybindings in > .cwmrc, but none of the ASCII characters could be used in a > keybinding. Anyway I found a work around five minutes ago. > > The big difference with this one and the others is I have a xorg.conf > on it with those rules for keyboard : > > Section "InputDevice" > Identifier "Keyboard0" > Driver "keyboard" > Option "Protocol" "standard" > Option "XkbRules" "xorg" > Option "XkbModel" "macintosh" > Option "XkbLayout" "fr" > EndSection > > I launch X, launch a xterm, I don't have the keybindings with fr > layout. I usualy use the dvorak layout (don't ask), I type 'setxkbmap > dvorak' and I don't have the keybindings. I try to comment all lines > appart 'Identifier' and 'Driver' and add 'Option "XkbLayout" "dvorak"' > and I don't have the keybindings. > > Finally I just wrote the .xinitrc I wrote on my others machines : > > setxkbmap dvorak& > cwm > > And it works. Going back to fr with 'setxkbmap fr' don't work, going > back to dvorak layout after and keybindings still work. Writing fr in > place of dvorak in .xinitrc make keybindings works for fr, but if I > change keybindings to dvorak after cwm is launch it doesn't work > anymore. > > > Change your layout in .xinitrc before launching cwm, don't change your > layout after : that's my workaround. Understanding truly "why?" is > yet beyond my skills (thought I'd be interested in answers). I hope > this description will tip people with skills and knowledge on real > solutions :-). Actually I lost the repeat function, e.g. to delete a word I can't just press and hold backspace. It's pretty much a detail, but I miss it. Thank you.
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Nicolas Legrand wrote: > "Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in > > cwm. > > > > Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a > > beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in > > screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. > > > > Any hints? Thank you. > > I had the same problem on a very old iMac. It was the only computer > who had the same problem you have. I could remap the keybindings in > .cwmrc, but none of the ASCII characters could be used in a > keybinding. Anyway I found a work around five minutes ago. > > The big difference with this one and the others is I have a xorg.conf > on it with those rules for keyboard : > > Section "InputDevice" > Identifier "Keyboard0" > Driver "keyboard" > Option "Protocol" "standard" > Option "XkbRules" "xorg" > Option "XkbModel" "macintosh" > Option "XkbLayout" "fr" > EndSection > > I launch X, launch a xterm, I don't have the keybindings with fr > layout. I usualy use the dvorak layout (don't ask), I type 'setxkbmap > dvorak' and I don't have the keybindings. I try to comment all lines > appart 'Identifier' and 'Driver' and add 'Option "XkbLayout" "dvorak"' > and I don't have the keybindings. > > Finally I just wrote the .xinitrc I wrote on my others machines : > > setxkbmap dvorak& > cwm > > And it works. Going back to fr with 'setxkbmap fr' don't work, going > back to dvorak layout after and keybindings still work. Writing fr in > place of dvorak in .xinitrc make keybindings works for fr, but if I > change keybindings to dvorak after cwm is launch it doesn't work > anymore. > > > Change your layout in .xinitrc before launching cwm, don't change your > layout after : that's my workaround. Understanding truly "why?" is > yet beyond my skills (thought I'd be interested in answers). I hope > this description will tip people with skills and knowledge on real > solutions :-). I don't know if this is the "right" solution but works now. :) Thank you.
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 03:37:57PM +, Matthew Szudzik wrote: > Note, I was told by one of the Fluxbox developers that I need to add the > following line > > xmodmap -e 'add Mod4 = Super_L' > > to my .xinitrc file if I want the Windows key to be well-behaved, but I > don't understand the reason why. I've done a little Googling, and apparently this is workaround for a bug in the X.org keycodes. See http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/faq/entries/Modifier_releases.html
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
one interesting one i have found is that M- will not work on firefox if there are tabs/multiple pages open. I always configure my window managers to use the Windows key (i.e. Mod4) rather than Control or Alt (i.e. Meta). This prevents conflicts with the applications that are being managed by the window manager--since ordinary applications, like Firefox, don't use the Windows key. i subsequently discovered this was my own mistake - M- _does_ work okay with tabbed Firefox. apologies. +-+ Glenn Becker - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org +-+
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 02:09:38PM +, Glenn Becker wrote: > one interesting one i have found is that M- will not work on firefox > if there are tabs/multiple pages open. I always configure my window managers to use the Windows key (i.e. Mod4) rather than Control or Alt (i.e. Meta). This prevents conflicts with the applications that are being managed by the window manager--since ordinary applications, like Firefox, don't use the Windows key. Note, I was told by one of the Fluxbox developers that I need to add the following line xmodmap -e 'add Mod4 = Super_L' to my .xinitrc file if I want the Windows key to be well-behaved, but I don't understand the reason why.
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in cwm. one interesting one i have found is that M- will not work on firefox if there are tabs/multiple pages open. +-+ Glenn Becker - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org +-+
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
"Daniel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in > cwm. > > Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a > beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in > screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. > > Any hints? Thank you. I had the same problem on a very old iMac. It was the only computer who had the same problem you have. I could remap the keybindings in .cwmrc, but none of the ASCII characters could be used in a keybinding. Anyway I found a work around five minutes ago. The big difference with this one and the others is I have a xorg.conf on it with those rules for keyboard : Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Keyboard0" Driver "keyboard" Option "Protocol" "standard" Option "XkbRules" "xorg" Option "XkbModel" "macintosh" Option "XkbLayout" "fr" EndSection I launch X, launch a xterm, I don't have the keybindings with fr layout. I usualy use the dvorak layout (don't ask), I type 'setxkbmap dvorak' and I don't have the keybindings. I try to comment all lines appart 'Identifier' and 'Driver' and add 'Option "XkbLayout" "dvorak"' and I don't have the keybindings. Finally I just wrote the .xinitrc I wrote on my others machines : setxkbmap dvorak& cwm And it works. Going back to fr with 'setxkbmap fr' don't work, going back to dvorak layout after and keybindings still work. Writing fr in place of dvorak in .xinitrc make keybindings works for fr, but if I change keybindings to dvorak after cwm is launch it doesn't work anymore. Change your layout in .xinitrc before launching cwm, don't change your layout after : that's my workaround. Understanding truly "why?" is yet beyond my skills (thought I'd be interested in answers). I hope this description will tip people with skills and knowledge on real solutions :-).
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 08:52:16AM -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: > Alexander Polakov wrote: > >* Predrag Punosevac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080613 18:19]: > > > >>Alexander Polakov wrote: > >> > >>>* Predrag Punosevac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080613 11:53]: > >>> > >>> > Okan Demirmen wrote: > > > >On Thu 2008.06.12 at 11:28 -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: > > > > > >>Daniel B. wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings > >>>in > >>>cwm. > >>> > >>>Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just > >>>hear a > >>>beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in > >>>screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. > >>> > >>>Any hints? Thank you. > >>> > >>> > >can we see your .cwmrc? > > > > > > > >>I would try to arise ~/.cwmrc from your home directory. The another > >>thing is that you should carefully read man pages for cwm and make > >>sure you understand the meaning of M (meta key). > >>Meta key is different on different keyboards. So I do not know what > >>is meta key on your key board but on mine IBM (M type) it is ALT. I > >>like CWM very, very much but I didn't ditch the > >>OpenBox just because I thing that CWM is rapidly changing and the > >>configuration process is not 100% bullet proof. Namely if you go to > >>web-site CWM you will see that configuration is very different than > >>of the one in the base of OpenBSD. So obviously it has been modified > >>by OpenBSD developers. I must however say that CWM looks impressive > >>to me and I hope they fix few issues and maybe introduce few new > >>features which would probably make it one of the best WM around. > >> > >> > >yes, our cwm is now very different. > > > >can you elaborate on the "few issues"? there are a few, but i'm sure > >you can help by informing us of issues we are not yet aware ;) > > > > > Disclaimer: I played with CWM little bit so > my statements should not be taken too seriously. > > I personally had hard time trying to configure CWM to lunch > applications. In another words > according to documentation on > CWM web site one needs to edit > > ~/.calmwm > > but OpenBSD man pages say that > ~/.cwmrc > > is correct file to edit. > > Even after the editing ~/.cwmrc I could not > open the menu with the right button on the mouse which according > to CWM web-site should list the applications. > > That was on OpenBSD 4.2 release. I have not pursue the issue seriously > as according to > discussion on misc about WM from about 2-3 months ago CWM is in > development. > > The only thing that I personally miss in CWM > are virtual desktops. I DO know that if people start saying things like > that and developers start listening the CWM will soon become bloated. I > do not wish that. CWM is one of the best because it is minimalistic and > gets job done. It is also great thing that is in the base. > > > > >>>Bloated? What are you talking about? dwm [1] is less that 2000 LOC and > >>>it has > >>>virtual desktops, various tiling alghorithms, nice panel, window > >>>matching and what not. > >>>[1] http://dwm.suckless.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>We were not even talking about dynamic window manager dwm. We were > >>talking about CWM which is in the base. Those are two different things. > >>Have you ever tried dwm? > >> > > > >Are you joking? Of course I did. I have been using dwm since its first > >release. > > > > > >>Do you know that when you try to use full screen mode in Xpdf on dwm the > >>Xpdf will be unable to find it because of the way dwm is coded. > >> > > > >I dunno what do you mean by full screen mode. There's 1px border around > >the window in fullscreen mode, you mean that by it 'being unable'? > > > > > >>Have you tried panel for dwm? > >> > > > >Tried? Hmmm... It just works. > > > > > >>Please do and then lets talk about it. > >> > >>I like dwm but it is not for everyone. One of the reasons I said what I > >>said above about CWM is that I would like to see CWM remaining as minimal > >>as possible which in practical terms means competing with DWM which is > >>the king of minimal. > >> > > > >My point was cwm is already bigger in size but less featurish, so I can't > >see > >any way for it to be 'not bloated'. > > > > > Then you have a point:-) > > Best, > OKO Holy crap, this is bad quoting.
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
Alexander Polakov wrote: * Predrag Punosevac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080613 18:19]: Alexander Polakov wrote: * Predrag Punosevac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080613 11:53]: Okan Demirmen wrote: On Thu 2008.06.12 at 11:28 -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: Daniel B. wrote: Hi, I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in cwm. Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. Any hints? Thank you. can we see your .cwmrc? I would try to arise ~/.cwmrc from your home directory. The another thing is that you should carefully read man pages for cwm and make sure you understand the meaning of M (meta key). Meta key is different on different keyboards. So I do not know what is meta key on your key board but on mine IBM (M type) it is ALT. I like CWM very, very much but I didn't ditch the OpenBox just because I thing that CWM is rapidly changing and the configuration process is not 100% bullet proof. Namely if you go to web-site CWM you will see that configuration is very different than of the one in the base of OpenBSD. So obviously it has been modified by OpenBSD developers. I must however say that CWM looks impressive to me and I hope they fix few issues and maybe introduce few new features which would probably make it one of the best WM around. yes, our cwm is now very different. can you elaborate on the "few issues"? there are a few, but i'm sure you can help by informing us of issues we are not yet aware ;) Disclaimer: I played with CWM little bit so my statements should not be taken too seriously. I personally had hard time trying to configure CWM to lunch applications. In another words according to documentation on CWM web site one needs to edit ~/.calmwm but OpenBSD man pages say that ~/.cwmrc is correct file to edit. Even after the editing ~/.cwmrc I could not open the menu with the right button on the mouse which according to CWM web-site should list the applications. That was on OpenBSD 4.2 release. I have not pursue the issue seriously as according to discussion on misc about WM from about 2-3 months ago CWM is in development. The only thing that I personally miss in CWM are virtual desktops. I DO know that if people start saying things like that and developers start listening the CWM will soon become bloated. I do not wish that. CWM is one of the best because it is minimalistic and gets job done. It is also great thing that is in the base. Bloated? What are you talking about? dwm [1] is less that 2000 LOC and it has virtual desktops, various tiling alghorithms, nice panel, window matching and what not. [1] http://dwm.suckless.org We were not even talking about dynamic window manager dwm. We were talking about CWM which is in the base. Those are two different things. Have you ever tried dwm? Are you joking? Of course I did. I have been using dwm since its first release. Do you know that when you try to use full screen mode in Xpdf on dwm the Xpdf will be unable to find it because of the way dwm is coded. I dunno what do you mean by full screen mode. There's 1px border around the window in fullscreen mode, you mean that by it 'being unable'? Have you tried panel for dwm? Tried? Hmmm... It just works. Please do and then lets talk about it. I like dwm but it is not for everyone. One of the reasons I said what I said above about CWM is that I would like to see CWM remaining as minimal as possible which in practical terms means competing with DWM which is the king of minimal. My point was cwm is already bigger in size but less featurish, so I can't see any way for it to be 'not bloated'. Then you have a point:-) Best, OKO
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 08:44:56PM +0200, Pierre Riteau wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 01:13:05PM -0300, Daniel B. wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in > > cwm. > > > > Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a > > beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in > > screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. > > > > Any hints? Thank you. > > > > non-US keyboard layout? > I use dvorak, its not language based, but the keys differ. And cwm works like a charm for me ever since it was imported in the tree. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
Alexander Polakov wrote: * Predrag Punosevac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080613 11:53]: Okan Demirmen wrote: On Thu 2008.06.12 at 11:28 -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: Daniel B. wrote: Hi, I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in cwm. Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. Any hints? Thank you. can we see your .cwmrc? I would try to arise ~/.cwmrc from your home directory. The another thing is that you should carefully read man pages for cwm and make sure you understand the meaning of M (meta key). Meta key is different on different keyboards. So I do not know what is meta key on your key board but on mine IBM (M type) it is ALT. I like CWM very, very much but I didn't ditch the OpenBox just because I thing that CWM is rapidly changing and the configuration process is not 100% bullet proof. Namely if you go to web-site CWM you will see that configuration is very different than of the one in the base of OpenBSD. So obviously it has been modified by OpenBSD developers. I must however say that CWM looks impressive to me and I hope they fix few issues and maybe introduce few new features which would probably make it one of the best WM around. yes, our cwm is now very different. can you elaborate on the "few issues"? there are a few, but i'm sure you can help by informing us of issues we are not yet aware ;) Disclaimer: I played with CWM little bit so my statements should not be taken too seriously. I personally had hard time trying to configure CWM to lunch applications. In another words according to documentation on CWM web site one needs to edit ~/.calmwm but OpenBSD man pages say that ~/.cwmrc is correct file to edit. Even after the editing ~/.cwmrc I could not open the menu with the right button on the mouse which according to CWM web-site should list the applications. That was on OpenBSD 4.2 release. I have not pursue the issue seriously as according to discussion on misc about WM from about 2-3 months ago CWM is in development. The only thing that I personally miss in CWM are virtual desktops. I DO know that if people start saying things like that and developers start listening the CWM will soon become bloated. I do not wish that. CWM is one of the best because it is minimalistic and gets job done. It is also great thing that is in the base. Bloated? What are you talking about? dwm [1] is less that 2000 LOC and it has virtual desktops, various tiling alghorithms, nice panel, window matching and what not. [1] http://dwm.suckless.org We were not even talking about dynamic window manager dwm. We were talking about CWM which is in the base. Those are two different things. Have you ever tried dwm? Do you know that when you try to use full screen mode in Xpdf on dwm the Xpdf will be unable to find it because of the way dwm is coded. Have you tried panel for dwm? Please do and then lets talk about it. I like dwm but it is not for everyone. One of the reasons I said what I said above about CWM is that I would like to see CWM remaining as minimal as possible which in practical terms means competing with DWM which is the king of minimal. Best, Predrag Punosevac OKO
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
> > CWM doesn't support Xinerama. > > It doesn't. It will. Xinerama is useful. Ditto EWMH. Ehh? I ran Xinerama. I ran CWM. It worked. CWM saw my dual screen as one big screen. For just about everything I wantede to do that was good enough. // marc
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 06:35:31PM -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: > Marco S Hyman wrote: >> > CWM web site one needs to edit >> > > ~/.calmwm >> >> Ignore the CWM web site. It is for a version of cwm that is far >> different than that in the OpenBSD source tree. Anything you >> read there is likely to lead to confusion. >> >> Example: ~/.calmwm is a *directory* typically containing symbolic links >> to applictions that will be run. ~/.cwmrc is a file. >> >> > Even after the editing ~/.cwmrc I could not >> > open the menu with the right button on the mouse which according >> to > CWM web-site should list the applications. >> > > That was on OpenBSD 4.2 release. I have not pursue the issue >> seriously > as according to >> >> Uhhh, in 4.2 release .cwmrc didn't exist. It was added somewhat >> recently, I think after 4.3. >> > You are right!!! > > quote from man pages: > > the *cwmrc* file format first appeared in OpenBSD 4.4. Yes, and until it does everything in a nice way, it'll change a little. The other choice is to not change it ever, no matter how wrong something may be. Before that it was what came with when we imported it, it was bad, it wasn't even documented for months. > You are right about CWM web-site. It is just confusing. My understanding is > that CWM > from the base at this point is really OpenBSD fork of CWM. Correct. Marius doesn't maintain it anymore. >Thanks for info > regarding Xinerama. I was not aware of it because according to CWM web-site > CWM doesn't support Xinerama. It doesn't. It will. Xinerama is useful. Ditto EWMH. Cheers, -0- -- Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed. -- Irene Peter
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
Marco S Hyman wrote: > CWM web site one needs to edit > > ~/.calmwm Ignore the CWM web site. It is for a version of cwm that is far different than that in the OpenBSD source tree. Anything you read there is likely to lead to confusion. Example: ~/.calmwm is a *directory* typically containing symbolic links to applictions that will be run. ~/.cwmrc is a file. > Even after the editing ~/.cwmrc I could not > open the menu with the right button on the mouse which according to > CWM web-site should list the applications. > > That was on OpenBSD 4.2 release. I have not pursue the issue seriously > as according to Uhhh, in 4.2 release .cwmrc didn't exist. It was added somewhat recently, I think after 4.3. You are right!!! quote from man pages: the *cwmrc* file format first appeared in OpenBSD 4.4. I think that is why I stop playing with it. I do run current only on one machine. You are right about CWM web-site. It is just confusing. My understanding is that CWM from the base at this point is really OpenBSD fork of CWM. Thanks for info regarding Xinerama. I was not aware of it because according to CWM web-site CWM doesn't support Xinerama. Best, Predrag > Another feature that is appealing for me is > Xinerama support. Again that might make code more bloated which I do not > want to see. I ran cwm on a dual headed system usinx Xinerama. No special support was needed. My desktop is now a Mac so I don't use cwm that often any more. It is still my window manager of choice when on my older laptop. // marc
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
Okan Demirmen wrote: On Thu 2008.06.12 at 11:28 -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: Daniel B. wrote: Hi, I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in cwm. Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. Any hints? Thank you. can we see your .cwmrc? I would try to arise ~/.cwmrc from your home directory. The another thing is that you should carefully read man pages for cwm and make sure you understand the meaning of M (meta key). Meta key is different on different keyboards. So I do not know what is meta key on your key board but on mine IBM (M type) it is ALT. I like CWM very, very much but I didn't ditch the OpenBox just because I thing that CWM is rapidly changing and the configuration process is not 100% bullet proof. Namely if you go to web-site CWM you will see that configuration is very different than of the one in the base of OpenBSD. So obviously it has been modified by OpenBSD developers. I must however say that CWM looks impressive to me and I hope they fix few issues and maybe introduce few new features which would probably make it one of the best WM around. yes, our cwm is now very different. can you elaborate on the "few issues"? there are a few, but i'm sure you can help by informing us of issues we are not yet aware ;) Disclaimer: I played with CWM little bit so my statements should not be taken too seriously. I personally had hard time trying to configure CWM to lunch applications. In another words according to documentation on CWM web site one needs to edit ~/.calmwm but OpenBSD man pages say that ~/.cwmrc is correct file to edit. Even after the editing ~/.cwmrc I could not open the menu with the right button on the mouse which according to CWM web-site should list the applications. That was on OpenBSD 4.2 release. I have not pursue the issue seriously as according to discussion on misc about WM from about 2-3 months ago CWM is in development. The only thing that I personally miss in CWM are virtual desktops. I DO know that if people start saying things like that and developers start listening the CWM will soon become bloated. I do not wish that. CWM is one of the best because it is minimalistic and gets job done. It is also great thing that is in the base. I think VDESK package from ports can accomplish virtual desktops on CWM. I might be able to get used to grouping if I play more with CWM which I probably will do if you tell me that the above is caused by my stupidity and not by actual problem with the code. Another feature that is appealing for me is Xinerama support. Again that might make code more bloated which I do not want to see. Thank you for your HARD work, Predrag P. S. By the way I liked CWM so much that I configured key binding in OpenBox to behave on exactly the same way as in CWM so I am very close to switch to CWM.
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Edd Barrett wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Predrag Punosevac > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Daniel B. wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in > >> cwm. > > Is caps lock or num lock on? If so turn it off. Known bug. Off and off. Same problem. Thank you.
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Pierre Riteau wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 01:13:05PM -0300, Daniel B. wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in > > cwm. > > > > Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a > > beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in > > screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. > > > > Any hints? Thank you. > > > > non-US keyboard layout? Yes, but it is configured correctly. I get '/' when I type '/', '?' when I type '?', etc. So, I suppose it must work, since the others keybindings do. Forgot to say: br layout. Thank you.
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 01:13:05PM -0300, Daniel B. wrote: > Hi, > > I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in > cwm. > > Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a > beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in > screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. > > Any hints? Thank you. > non-US keyboard layout?
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Thu 2008.06.12 at 11:28 -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: > Daniel B. wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in >> cwm. >> >> Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a >> beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in >> screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. >> >> Any hints? Thank you. can we see your .cwmrc? > I would try to arise ~/.cwmrc from your home directory. The another > thing is that you should carefully read man pages for cwm and make sure > you understand the meaning of M (meta key). > Meta key is different on different keyboards. So I do not know what is > meta key on your key board but on mine IBM (M type) it is ALT. I like > CWM very, very much but I didn't ditch the > OpenBox just because I thing that CWM is rapidly changing and the > configuration process is not 100% bullet proof. Namely if you go to > web-site CWM you will see that configuration is very different than of > the one in the base of OpenBSD. So obviously it has been modified by > OpenBSD developers. I must however say that CWM looks impressive to me > and I hope they fix few issues and maybe introduce few new features > which would probably make it one of the best WM around. yes, our cwm is now very different. can you elaborate on the "few issues"? there are a few, but i'm sure you can help by informing us of issues we are not yet aware ;)
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Predrag Punosevac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel B. wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in >> cwm. Is caps lock or num lock on? If so turn it off. Known bug. -- Best Regards Edd http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: cwm keybindings misbehavior
Daniel B. wrote: Hi, I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in cwm. Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. Any hints? Thank you. I would try to arise ~/.cwmrc from your home directory. The another thing is that you should carefully read man pages for cwm and make sure you understand the meaning of M (meta key). Meta key is different on different keyboards. So I do not know what is meta key on your key board but on mine IBM (M type) it is ALT. I like CWM very, very much but I didn't ditch the OpenBox just because I thing that CWM is rapidly changing and the configuration process is not 100% bullet proof. Namely if you go to web-site CWM you will see that configuration is very different than of the one in the base of OpenBSD. So obviously it has been modified by OpenBSD developers. I must however say that CWM looks impressive to me and I hope they fix few issues and maybe introduce few new features which would probably make it one of the best WM around. Best, Predrag
cwm keybindings misbehavior
Hi, I can't get the response desired to some of the default keybindings in cwm. Some of them: M-/, C-/, M-?. With the first and the third, I just hear a beep (or a Wuff!! in screen). The second delete my window if not in screen, or just "Wuff!!" in screen. Any hints? Thank you.
