On 6 July 2014 09:39, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
>> On 5 July 2014 16:05, Olivier Galibert wrote:
>> > I found that setting up the monitors with xrandr then restarting fvwm
>> > from the menu works rather well. So screen configurati
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> On 5 July 2014 16:05, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > I found that setting up the monitors with xrandr then restarting fvwm
> > from the menu works rather well. So screen configuration is well
> > taken into account. OTOH, it seems
On 5 July 2014 16:05, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> I found that setting up the monitors with xrandr then restarting fvwm
> from the menu works rather well. So screen configuration is well
> taken into account. OTOH, it seems that having fvwm pick it up
> automatically would require major surgery.
I found that setting up the monitors with xrandr then restarting fvwm
from the menu works rather well. So screen configuration is well
taken into account. OTOH, it seems that having fvwm pick it up
automatically would require major surgery. The setup is so not
dynamic it's not funny.
OG.
On
On 26 May 2014 17:18, lee wrote:
> lee writes:
>
>> Thomas Adam writes:
>>
>>> So I don't want idle speculation or wonder to permeate the work I'm doing,
>>> the only thing FVWM will benefit from this will be bug-fixes, and I've
>>> already identified a few memory leaks. It's nice for FVWM in a
lee writes:
> Thomas Adam writes:
>
>> So I don't want idle speculation or wonder to permeate the work I'm doing,
>> the only thing FVWM will benefit from this will be bug-fixes, and I've
>> already identified a few memory leaks. It's nice for FVWM in a way, it's
>> being audited for free as a
Thomas Adam writes:
> So I don't want idle speculation or wonder to permeate the work I'm doing,
> the only thing FVWM will benefit from this will be bug-fixes, and I've
> already identified a few memory leaks. It's nice for FVWM in a way, it's
> being audited for free as a result of this work.
On 12 May 2014 12:08, Martin Cermak wrote:
> So, what's the relationship between your aforementioned private
> FVWM cleanup effort [1] and wayland?
Absolutely none.
-- Thomas Adam
On 11 May 2014 17:57, E Frank Ball III wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 02:28:19PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote:
> >
> > FVWM is still an active project as you can see it on the mailing lists
> > but it's true that there are many parts in the code which could be
> > removed but that's not so easy.
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. Mai 2014 um 18:57 Uhr
> Von: "E Frank Ball III"
> An: fvwm
> Betreff: Re: FVWM: fvwm and mvwm? How is fvwm?
>
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 02:28:19PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote:
> >
> > FVWM is still an active project as you can s
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 02:28:19PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote:
>
> FVWM is still an active project as you can see it on the mailing lists
> but it's true that there are many parts in the code which could be
> removed but that's not so easy. FVWM is over 20 years old and many things
> were grow
Stuart Longland wrote:
> On 11/05/14 19:39, Michael Treibton wrote:
>> I recently read this:
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/+ThomasAdamXteddy/posts/H5dV9UM7Pbe
>>
>> And wondered what the status of fvwm is for definite, especially now
>> one of the main developers has abandoned it.
>>
>> What do oth
On 11/05/14 19:39, Michael Treibton wrote:
> I recently read this:
>
> https://plus.google.com/+ThomasAdamXteddy/posts/H5dV9UM7Pbe
>
> And wondered what the status of fvwm is for definite, especially now
> one of the main developers has abandoned it.
>
> What do others think?
It worries me a bi
Hi,
I recently read this:
https://plus.google.com/+ThomasAdamXteddy/posts/H5dV9UM7Pbe
And wondered what the status of fvwm is for definite, especially now
one of the main developers has abandoned it.
What do others think?
Michael
14 matches
Mail list logo
