On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 05:31:10PM -0500, Brian wrote:
> Do you really consider FVWM a museum piece?  Why is there current
> development going on for it then?  Maybe I should be looking at a

Perhaps I wasn't very clear here -- it was a compliment; I was not calling
FVWM itself a museum piece.  Rather, it has a lot of internal workarounds for
buggy clients, including a lot of work gone into Tk handling of windows.
Additionally, there's other things such as good window gravity handling, etc.
The point I was making is that because FVWM is old, and had to handle a lot of
these things at the time, you don't see that level of detail in other WMs and
DEs, from what I have observed.

Now it might be that it's because such toolkits aren't as common any more, but
the fact remains that FVWM still has the code to handle this, and always will.
It's definitely a good thing, from my point of view.

FVWM development has halted for a number of reasons, but then fvwm2 itself
doesn't need much more work anyway, IMO.  It would be nice to get back to
doing fvwm development, but there's a lot of things to sort out which---when I
last tried---grated on a number of people.

> different WindowManager since I can't find a DE that's less than 300M
> load on my lowly 4G Mem desktop.  KDE Plasma is going to be demanding
> even more and GNOME for Slackware is also large.  XFCE is close but it
> keeps borking on me after a number of power management suspends. (Maybe
> a bad DBus connection?). 

Pass.  You won't find a better/more featured window manager other than FVWM to
fit the 4GB deskop you describe.

-- Thomas Adam

Reply via email to