On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 06:05:43PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On 25 May 2013 16:53, Marc Espie <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:19:56AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > >> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 06:48:05PM -0400, Patrick Mc(avery wrote: > >> > I tried to load Fluxbox and was disappointed with it. It had several > >> > menubuttons for application that were not yet installed. > >> > >> There is more than just Fluxbox out there. That's UNIX world, it > >> is up to you and you have plenty of choices. > >> > >> Bloatware like Gnome, XFCE, KDE and other crap is available through ports. > >> > >> Minimalistic versions like fvwm, cwm are waiting to be configured to meet > >> your special needs. And in fact, if you cut through the clutter of options > >> and manpages, you might be much more satisfied than using some windows > >> version where you just can tick an option on or off. > > > > We're still waiting for someone with time on his hands to take over fvwm > > development. > > I can help there, being the only upstream developer for FVWM for now. > > Specifically, what is it which is lacking from your point of view > which needs amending? A statement of "very little support for modern > X" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's the _behaviour_ from > FVWM which you perceive as lacking?
There are transient windows annotations that fvwm completely disregards. The other thing it doesn't really support is multiple screen support and xrandr. There are probably lots more we don't support so far, but that's mostly matthieu who would know about it. Note that I am obviously talking about the version in OpenBSD proper, not the ports version. It diverged when fvwm switched to GPL. If you could reimplement new stuff as !GPL licenced stuff, that would be swell... (or hey, change the licence back, talk to the people who contributed code in between, and ask them permission to include their work)
