On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 21:02 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> On 8/2/24 13:51, hw wrote:
> > It has become a very limited option years ago and is basically
> > obsolete. Just try to run, for example, firefox on a remote host via
> > X11 forwarding. I suspect that anything that might use
On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 18:10 +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 05:50:44AM +0100, hw wrote:
> > I still don't see why it shouldn't be possible. I never expected a
> > port, and I understand that the architectures of X11 and Wayland are
> > very different. Yet why shouldn't it be
On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 12:38 -0800, mark_at_yahoo wrote:
> On 2/7/24 20:09, hw wrote:
> > On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 13:53 +0100, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
> > > I hope to be able to go on with Xorg until I live.
> >
> > Or use wayland and start living now :) Living in the past seldwhen is
> > a good
On 2/7/24 20:09, hw wrote:
On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 13:53 +0100, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
I hope to be able to go on with Xorg until I live.
Or use wayland and start living now :) Living in the past seldwhen is
a good idea.
Except when the past is better: More capable, complete, and highly
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 05:50:44AM +0100, hw wrote:
> I still don't see why it shouldn't be possible. I never expected a
> port, and I understand that the architectures of X11 and Wayland are
> very different. Yet why shouldn't it be possible to create a
> compositor that provides the
On 8/2/24 13:51, hw wrote:
It has become a very limited option years ago and is basically
obsolete. Just try to run, for example, firefox on a remote host via
X11 forwarding. I suspect that anything that might use acceleration
powers of a graphics card doesn't work, and that kinda leaves only
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
On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 22:05 +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> [...]
> 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
>
On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 22:42 -0600, Jason Tibbitts wrote:
> I'm running wayland right now (with the KDE desktop) and can fire up
> a local xterm or ssh to a different machine and run xterm and it
> works just fine.
Does this have to be done from an X11 client (like xterm) so you're
doing it from
On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 13:53 +0100, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> > Afterall, no one needs more then one computer...
>
> I suppose there is a smiley missing after the sentence :-)
>
> My usual way of working (post-COVID, from home) involves usually one or
On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 10:55 -0500, Paul Fox wrote:
> I realize this discussion is drifting away from fvwm, but...
>
> ...a major part of my daily activity has always depended on X11's
> ability to function on remote displays. Does that functionality
> (i.e. "DISPLAY=remotehost:0" vs.
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:42:37PM -0600, Jason Tibbitts wrote:
> Now, I don't know if you could use the really old-style remote display
> stuff where ssh is not involved. Xwayland really is a proper X server
> so the ability to do it is probably down in there somewhere.
Yes-and-no -- in that,
Lucio Chiappetti wrote (Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 01:53:29PM +0100):
> I hope to be able to go on with Xorg until I live.
Amen! :-)
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Robert Heller wrote:
Afterall, no one needs more then one computer...
I suppose there is a smiley missing after the sentence :-)
My usual way of working (post-COVID, from home) involves usually one or
two ssh sessions on two different remote work machines. Quite
On 3/2/24 01:55, Paul Fox wrote:
I realize this discussion is drifting away from fvwm, but...
...a major part of my daily activity has always depended on X11's
ability to function on remote displays. Does that functionality
(i.e. "DISPLAY=remotehost:0" vs. "DISPLAY=:0") exist if either or
both
> John McCue writes:
> I heard of waypipe, but from what I understand is for it to work, the
> remote system needs to have wayland too.
Well, it's for running a wayland application on a remote machine
displaying on your local wayland-running machine. If you want to run an
X11 application
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 06:11:01PM -0600, Jason Tibbitts wrote:
Robert Heller writes:
I believe Wayland does not support that sort of thing.
It does, actually, but not exactly the same way. Look up "waypipe".
One does get the impression that it's all an afterthought, though.
I heard of
robert wrote:
>
> At Fri, 02 Feb 2024 18:11:01 -0600 Jason Tibbitts wrote:
>
> >
> > > Robert Heller writes:
> >
> > > I believe Wayland does not support that sort of thing.
> >
> > It does, actually, but not exactly the same way. Look up "waypipe".
> > One does get the
At Fri, 02 Feb 2024 18:11:01 -0600 Jason Tibbitts wrote:
>
> > Robert Heller writes:
>
> > I believe Wayland does not support that sort of thing.
>
> It does, actually, but not exactly the same way. Look up "waypipe".
> One does get the impression that it's all an afterthought,
> Robert Heller writes:
> I believe Wayland does not support that sort of thing.
It does, actually, but not exactly the same way. Look up "waypipe".
One does get the impression that it's all an afterthought, though.
- J<
At Fri, 02 Feb 2024 10:55:46 -0500 Paul Fox wrote:
>
> I realize this discussion is drifting away from fvwm, but...
>
> ...a major part of my daily activity has always depended on X11's
> ability to function on remote displays. Does that functionality
> (i.e. "DISPLAY=remotehost:0" vs.
> Does wayland have an X11 compatibility feature?
Wayland has an 'XWayland' layer that allows regular X clients to talk to
a Wayland server. However, this does not support special X clients like
window managers or (as I understand it) automation tools like 'xdotool'.
So you can run an X-based
I realize this discussion is drifting away from fvwm, but...
...a major part of my daily activity has always depended on X11's
ability to function on remote displays. Does that functionality
(i.e. "DISPLAY=remotehost:0" vs. "DISPLAY=:0") exist if either or
both of the hosts is based on Wayland?
Also a bunch of new DE/WM and soon XFCE. There will still be diversity,
but a new one.
However I'm not sure Xorg will be out soon there are still missing
features on Wayland, like screen recording (available only on Gnome),
which means that softwares like OBS don't work on it.
Le 02/02/2024 à
At Fri, 02 Feb 2024 04:28:44 +0100 hw wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 14:02 -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:25â¯PM hw wrote:
> > >
> > > so is there finally a version that works for wayland?
> > >
> > No, fvwm only works with xorg and most likely won't be
On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 14:02 -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:25 PM hw wrote:
> >
> > so is there finally a version that works for wayland?
> >
> No, fvwm only works with xorg and most likely won't be ported.
>
> > What are the differences between fvwm2 and fvwm3?
> >
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:25 PM hw wrote:
> > so is there finally a version that works for wayland?
> >
> No, fvwm only works with xorg and most likely won't be ported.
To add some information, a 'port' would be more difficult than it
sounds. The architecture of Wayland does not have an
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:25 PM hw wrote:
>
> so is there finally a version that works for wayland?
>
No, fvwm only works with xorg and most likely won't be ported.
> What are the differences between fvwm2 and fvwm3?
>
See https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/discussions/878
jaimos
Jaimos Skriletz wrote (Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 12:45:34PM -0700):
> Yes, you can have different resolutions. I think you may run into
> issues using DesktopConfiguration shared with different resolutions,
> but DesktopConfiguration per-monitor will work just fine.
FVWM3 installation went without a
Jaimos Skriletz wrote (Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 12:45:34PM -0700):
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 9:42 AM Mandar Mitra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Browsing around FVWM3's git repo, and looking at
> > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/blob/main/dev-docs/NEW-COMMANDS.md#hierarchy-and-specification
> > in
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 9:42 AM Mandar Mitra wrote:
>
>
> Browsing around FVWM3's git repo, and looking at
> https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/blob/main/dev-docs/NEW-COMMANDS.md#hierarchy-and-specification
> in particular, it seems like fvwm3 will allow me to have independent
> desktops with
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 at 19:31, Harald Dunkel wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> using fvwm3 and
>
> Style "qmmp" NoTitle, WindowListSkip, Sticky, StaysOnBottom
>
> qmmp2 (https://sourceforge.net/projects/qmmp-dev/files/qmmp/2.1/) is not
> sticky. The other attributes from the list work as
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 5:26 PM John McCue wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed an issue with fvwm3 1.0.5 vs 1.0.4.
>
> Please let me know if you need more information.
>
Could you check the known issues at github, and adding this issue
there will get more attention.
Stuart Longland writes:
> On 7/9/20 9:40 am, Chris Bennett wrote:
>> I'm running amd64 OpenBSD and there are libraries we don't have, such as
>> libbson, which can be added.
>> However, I'm a little unclear on what the -dev signifies on the required
>> libraries.
>
> I'm guessing possibly a
On 7/9/20 9:40 am, Chris Bennett wrote:
> I'm running amd64 OpenBSD and there are libraries we don't have, such as
> libbson, which can be added.
> However, I'm a little unclear on what the -dev signifies on the required
> libraries.
I'm guessing possibly a Debian or RedHat-ism? A lot of those
Hi,
I'm running amd64 OpenBSD and there are libraries we don't have, such as
libbson, which can be added.
However, I'm a little unclear on what the -dev signifies on the required
libraries.
I'm a bit outside of what that means. My experience is mostly Perl and
PostgreSQL.
Thanks,
Chris Bennett
On 7/9/20 7:13 am, elliot s wrote:
> Is there a way to get a precompiled 64 bit version?
64-bit? MIPS n64 binary compiled on OpenBSD 6.6 cool with you?
To provide a binary that will actually work, we need to know more than
the width of the address bus your CPU uses.
There's AMD64, ARM64,
On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 02:13:18PM -0700, elliot s wrote:
> Retrying from laptop since fvwm mail doesnt like my tablet gmail (html issue).
>
> Is there a way to get a precompiled 64 bit version?
> Perhaps put one up on the site?
> I check pkgs.org but I assume it'll be a long time before it hits
Retrying from laptop since fvwm mail doesnt like my tablet gmail (html issue).
Is there a way to get a precompiled 64 bit version?
Perhaps put one up on the site?
I check pkgs.org but I assume it'll be a long time before it hits there.
Thanx
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 02:06:10 +0100
Thomas Adam wrote:
>
> It's not without its rough edges, but that's true of any software.
> Even though I've called those out in the release notes, I consider
> Fvwm3 now good enough for every day use.
>
I just want to report that virtual desktops still have
OpenBSD has an older fvwm installed in base. Licensing reasons.
A newer fvwm2 is part of ports. So that's two different versions already
available.
Adding fvwm-3.X.X would really cause conflicts. I would much rather see
fvwm2 and fvwm3. That avoids some tricky work making them both
installable. As
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 1:15 PM Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:13:45PM -0600, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
> > Creating two packages that live side by side is a far greater
> > challenge than initially anticipated. First there are a lot of other
> > binaries such as fvwm-root,
On Thu 2020-09-03 20:14 , Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:13:45PM -0600, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
[ ... stuff deleted ... ]
> > Currently, I'm just gonna to go with fvwm3 conflicts with fvwm2 and
> > only one of those can be installed at a time.
>
> I don't like this naming
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:13:45PM -0600, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
> I also see fvwm2 being used for quite a while even as fvwm3 matures.
Can we please stop calling the project "fvwm2" or "fvwm3". We've
renamed it to "fvwm" ages ago.
> Creating two packages that live side by side is a far greater
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:28 AM Martin Cermak wrote:
>
> On Thu 2020-09-03 09:49 , Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:06:10AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > > Well, we did it. Version 1.0.0 of Fvwm3 is now live and ready to be
> > > installed.
> >
> > Um, can we call that
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:27:19PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> It's a tricky one. Right now, things have not diverged because I haven't
> implemented those changes. I'd always viewed Fvwm3 as being a departure from
> Fvwm2 -- and hence any association with it at the moment as being equivalent
>
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 07:42:58AM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> Martin Cermak writes:
>
> > On Thu 2020-09-03 09:49 , Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:06:10AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> >> > Well, we did it. Version 1.0.0 of Fvwm3 is now live and ready to be
> >> >
Martin Cermak writes:
> On Thu 2020-09-03 09:49 , Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:06:10AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
>> > Well, we did it. Version 1.0.0 of Fvwm3 is now live and ready to be
>> > installed.
>>
>> Um, can we call that fvwm-3.0.0 instead of fvwm3-1.0.0 please?
On Thu 2020-09-03 09:49 , Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:06:10AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > Well, we did it. Version 1.0.0 of Fvwm3 is now live and ready to be
> > installed.
>
> Um, can we call that fvwm-3.0.0 instead of fvwm3-1.0.0 please?
> Renaming the project because
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 02:06:10AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> Well, we did it. Version 1.0.0 of Fvwm3 is now live and ready to be
> installed.
Um, can we call that fvwm-3.0.0 instead of fvwm3-1.0.0 please?
Renaming the project because of a new major version was already a
mistake for fvwm-2.0.0.
On 9/1/20 2:20 AM, Thomas Adam wrote:
Please do give this a try. See:
https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/releases/tag/1.0.0-rc0
Cool, thanx very much.
A slightly older version of fvwm can be found here, if you are
interested:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:03:49AM -0500, Brian wrote:
> There is one comment. On the Installation Instructinos page, under
> Manually, the first sentence ends akwardly. Did you mean "core or
> optional" or "core and optional" ? I believe you meant the latter that
> both core and optional
Thanks! I'll give it a shot this weekend.
Been some 15 years of using fvwm now, so thanks for all your work!
GI
--
'Smith & Wesson' -- The original point and click interface.
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:29:12AM -0400, gi1242+f...@gmail.com wrote:
> Very cool, thanks! Is there an upgrade guide/list of changes since
> Fvwm2? I couldn't find it on the website.
I've added some preliminary notes here:
https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/releases/tag/1.0.0-rc0
> (I see that
Very cool, thanks! Is there an upgrade guide/list of changes since
Fvwm2? I couldn't find it on the website.
(I see that my current configuration will still work with fvwm3,
but I'm still slow to test it as it's critical for my daily work.)
GI
--
When an actress saw her first strands of gray
On Saturday, 4. January 2020 16:29, Thomas Adam wrote:
> What I'm hoping for right now is the bare-bones functionality of:
>
> - Correct screen detection (that is, correct number of physical screens) --
> this is currently printed to STDERR when FVWM3 starts up, so check there;
Works.
>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 05:20:07PM -0600, Brian wrote:
> I know that Thomas is removing some redundant functions, I wonder if
> fvwmform is one of them?
That's correct. FvwmForm was removed in commit
7b8684385826d71b38be96f3c1a4e82c39aa4b38
> Fvwm manpages can always be contributed to the list
Can a (64 bit) compiled version be put in bin for those of use that
don't have a compiler? I don't think theres much if any that are OS
dependent. I just pull fvwm from whichever pkgs has the latest
version and it works.
I'm actually running puppy xenial.
Thanx
66 matches
Mail list logo
