On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:08:24PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > What they gain, and what it was meant for, is new users curious about > Fvwm. Without a config, the casual user will get no where > and most likely look somewhere else. > The WM came up and you couldn't even create a window. > Previous to the Setup Form, we would tell a new user to > copy/rename the provided sample to get going. > > With your changes, we don't even provide a sample.
Not yet, no. But again, I consider the this case of having no config to be less of a problem. Leaving it with the changes I'm proposing means it is easier to put in place something else that will provide a default configuration, whatever that may be. > > So given all of that, I'm inclined to proceed---but I am not personally > > interested in providing a new configuration myself, but I am willing to > > offer > > mentoring and help to people who want to work on this, as I have a better > > idea > > on how to do that which isn't as invasive as it has been in the past in > > terms > > of spreading out over multiple files. Should anyone want to chat about > > this, > > I'm all ears. > > Not clear what you mean here. > > Are the multiple files the sample and the Form in the modules directory > or > do you mean the potentially multiple files created by the setup form? > > Pretty easy to fix the later. Your first point. > So, there is still a question in my mind about how we expect > a new user to have a user friendly introduction to Fvwm. We put in place something different. We've had proposals about that in the past (Nick Fortune). I'm wanting to hear from others about what that might look like. -- Thomas Adam
