Re: FVWM: fvwm3? [on Wayland]
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 07:30:05PM +0100, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > Anno domini 2024 Sun, 4 Feb 01:14:21 +0100 > Martin Cermak scripsit: > > On Sun 2024-02-04 09:51 , Stuart Longland wrote: > > [...] > > > > IMHO for FVWM to survive, the FVWM community needs to focus on > > wayland. And start from scratch... I wish this happens. > > How many here have grey beards? I hope "somebody" (without grey beard but > with a lot of time) makes a sane X11 emulation layer. On the other hand, > OpenBSD is alive and has it's own heavily patched Xorg called Xenocara and > they most likely won't let that go. So maybe porting Xenocara to linux is a > better way to go. > > Nik I cannot imagine OpenBSD will give up it's special Xenocara. OpenBSD kept it's own specially patched Apache 1.39 for years to keep Apache within the base OS. The newer Apache 2 license was unacceptable for base OS requirements. I cannot confirm this, but rumor has it that Theo, the forker of OpenBSD from NetBSD uses FVWM, so I would bet that even though Wayland is being brought in, Xorg as Xenocara will be here to stay. I like FVWM because I can pretty much do whatever I want to take the time to think up and make it happen. I just can't do that with the other WM's I like. Also, it's lightweight, which is a must. -- Regards, Chris Bennett "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." George Orwell - 1984
Re: FVWM: Resizing
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 11:48:51PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > Am Mo den 8. Mai 2023 um 19:24 schrieb Thomas Adam: > > On Sun, 7 May 2023 at 09:08, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > > > what is the best method to react to resizing displays? Be it on beamer > > > or in a virtualbox. > > > > > > Usually, fvwm does not apply to such an event and need to be restarted. > > > But this is suboptimal and I would like to find a better solution (even > > > automatic restart would be better). > > > > In fvwm3, randr support supports this without a restart, but it needs more > > testing. > > Well, now I experimented a bit with fvwm3. > > It is true that the desktop resize dynamicly. But not the position of > button box (that I have on the lower right side). > > I also have a problem with icon size in the buttons. I have a screen > with a very high resolution. Usually I set them with xrandr to 1/4 size > (half x and half y) but as I also experimented with true type fonts that > gets correctly resized, I tried the full resulution. > > Long sentences, The problem is, that the icons in FvwmButtons are only > half size now and only filling a part of their buttons. > > How can I resize them to the correct DPI settings (from xrandr or > Xresources)? > > Regards >Klaus > -- > Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.ch/ > pub 4096R/4E20AF1C 2011-05-16Klaus Ethgen > Fingerprint: 85D4 CA42 952C 949B 1753 62B3 79D0 B06F 4E20 AF1C I use .Xresources. Also, some programs like smplayer have a setting that you can adjust to higher DPI to fix the menu and other fonts within that program. Other programs, such as VLC, I haven't found a fix for, yet. -- Regards, Chris Bennet
Re: FVWM: FVWM3-1.0.0 is released
Hi, I'm running amd64 OpenBSD and there are libraries we don't have, such as libbson, which can be added. However, I'm a little unclear on what the -dev signifies on the required libraries. I'm a bit outside of what that means. My experience is mostly Perl and PostgreSQL. Thanks, Chris Bennett
Re: FVWM: FVWM3-1.0.0 is released
OpenBSD has an older fvwm installed in base. Licensing reasons. A newer fvwm2 is part of ports. So that's two different versions already available. Adding fvwm-3.X.X would really cause conflicts. I would much rather see fvwm2 and fvwm3. That avoids some tricky work making them both installable. As fvwm3 will diverge, I can easily see someone wanting a stable fvwm to use or go with a changing fvwm3. Multiple users are very likely to want two different versions. If you like your current setup, why require battling with configs? If you want changes, no problem with config changes. Everybody happy. There are already three flavors of fvwm available in ports right now, plus 1 installed with base system. Sure, the conflicts can be handled, but IMHO offering fvwm3 versus fvwm2 is easier for end users new to fvwm. Thanks for the hard work! Chris Bennett
FVWM: When will fvwm3 be ready to start trying out?
I've been using fvwm2 for a while, but I do find the syntax a bit hard to follow. I've also had problems getting many example configs to work right. Which means I'm pretty open to trying fvwm3 out. I've cloned the git, but I haven't had a chance to look at the code yet. I'm using OpenBSD. I'm defintely no pro, but I don't have any problems with trying to compile it. Thanks for the hard work! Chris Bennett
