On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 05:26:26PM +0100, Julian Bradfield wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =?ISO-8859-1?B?SmVz+nM=?= Guerrero <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > >> > What I find really odd is that I'm running the exact same fvwm binaries > >> > (fvwm 2.4.18 (or 2.4.20 - it doesn't matter)) > [...] > >I think he should upgrade. That is quite old. > > Er, according to www.fvwm.org, 2.4.20 is the latest stable release.
Yes, 2.4.20 is fine, it is still maintained. Please send the information I requested so I requested earlier. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, dominik.vogt (at) gmx.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
