Hi Dan, On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 09:59:48AM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > Thomas Adam <[email protected]> writes: > > > All I am really looking to see what the interest involved in this is. I > > warn you though, I won't hesitate to put a stop to it if this turns into a > > shed-painting exercise -- I don't want that. I can already foresee a bunch > > of shed-painting, and I won't tolerate it. > > Shed painting? > > Is that anything like a can of worms?
Not really -- you might know it termed as "bike-shedding" as well? :) > Some ideas: > > Right now we offer 2 easy defaults: > > Setup Form > Setup 95 > > The first gives a pager and menus for launching, > icons for minimized applications, and commented out > skeletons for other modules and customization. > > The second gives a taskbar. > > > Of course, neither suits me but if I had to start > over I'd start with the Form. It would be nice > if there was only one setup path. Yes -- I'm all for opt-in/opt-out and toggling components on and off via a single interface using FvwmForm -- I didn't necessarily want that to go away which is why I was ignoring it for now, and wanting to let people come up with aesthetics; I can then split up such a config into different parts, much like what FvwmForm-Setup currently offers. I just didn't want to burden someone with that as a requisite for coming up with a config. > There is more to this than just appearance. > Each choice involves key bindings, appearance, > window button function, mode of operation (task bars, > icons, pagers). Yep -- that's where I depart, and let others think on this. :) > Whatever we do, there has to be a way for users to avoid it. > That was the logic behind the customization thing I posted about > a while ago, each thing that installed itself provides a > hook that un-installs itself. > See above, hopefully that covers this. -- Thomas Adam
