On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:58:56PM -0400, des...@verizon.net wrote:
> Thomas Adam writes:
> > 2. Perhaps more importantly, we have a number of users who compile FVWM up
> > themselves, or we have environments where FVWM is deployed in rather
> > interesting circumstances (perhaps you've alluded t
Thomas Adam writes:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:16:02PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> So as for timescales: Personally, I am still working on my xdg-menu
> replacement, but it's slow since it's bloody boring, and the script I am
> basing it off pretty much sucks. So I am going through the X
hi!
On 13 June 2010 10:12, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:16:02PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
>> hi everyone,
>
> Hello.
>
>> i've been reading with interest on this list for months that work is
>> being done to make fvwm-cvs stable.
>
> Since about 2003? Sure... :)
wowza -
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:16:02PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> hi everyone,
Hello.
> i've been reading with interest on this list for months that work is
> being done to make fvwm-cvs stable.
Since about 2003? Sure... :)
> i see that there is a new fvwm-convert-2.6 script which has worked
hi everyone,
i've been reading with interest on this list for months that work is
being done to make fvwm-cvs stable.
i see that there is a new fvwm-convert-2.6 script which has worked
with all my old config files - flawlessly - i dont get any errors from
fvwm using the converted configs and i do
