Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
namely an implementation of the stuff that makes it possible to go fullscreen and back. I remade .fvwmrc and set this to do what you wanted: Key F9 A M Maximize 100 100 There is a lot options to change and make fvwm just perfect. This takes the shell as an input and fullscreens it and, with repeated press (alt-F9), scales back. Best regards Zoran
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
* Thomas Adam tho...@xteddy.org [2013-09-12 10:17:56 +0100]: On 12 September 2013 06:10, Carson Chittom car...@wistly.net wrote: Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update? That is I. Unfortunately, FVWM cannot be relicensed. -- Thomas Adam If it can't be relicensed so an up-to-date version can be included in the base distribution then is there much point in it being there at all? People can simply use the package/port to install a supported version and the base distribution can simply have cwm as its main wm.
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
James Griffin j...@kontrol.kode5.net writes: * Thomas Adam tho...@xteddy.org [2013-09-12 10:17:56 +0100]: On 12 September 2013 06:10, Carson Chittom car...@wistly.net wrote: Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update? That is I. Unfortunately, FVWM cannot be relicensed. -- Thomas Adam If it can't be relicensed so an up-to-date version can be included in the base distribution then is there much point in it being there at all? People can simply use the package/port to install a supported version and the base distribution can simply have cwm as its main wm. Lots of people use the base fvwm. Which works fine for them, even if older. Also fvwm is easier to work than cwm when you don't know either. -- jca | PGP: 0x06A11494 / 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
Hi, On 15 September 2013 11:48, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas j...@wxcvbn.org wrote: James Griffin j...@kontrol.kode5.net writes: * Thomas Adam tho...@xteddy.org [2013-09-12 10:17:56 +0100]: On 12 September 2013 06:10, Carson Chittom car...@wistly.net wrote: Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update? That is I. Unfortunately, FVWM cannot be relicensed. -- Thomas Adam If it can't be relicensed so an up-to-date version can be included in the base distribution then is there much point in it being there at all? People can simply use the package/port to install a supported version and the base distribution can simply have cwm as its main wm. Lots of people use the base fvwm. Which works fine for them, even if older. Also fvwm is easier to work than cwm when you don't know either. I agree. The fact that there's a newer version of FVWM in ports is fine; FVWM in base, despite being older might be a minor nuisance, but not insurmountable. -- Thomas Adam
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 08:12:53PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: Hi, On 15 September 2013 11:48, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas j...@wxcvbn.org wrote: James Griffin j...@kontrol.kode5.net writes: * Thomas Adam tho...@xteddy.org [2013-09-12 10:17:56 +0100]: On 12 September 2013 06:10, Carson Chittom car...@wistly.net wrote: Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update? That is I. Unfortunately, FVWM cannot be relicensed. -- Thomas Adam If it can't be relicensed so an up-to-date version can be included in the base distribution then is there much point in it being there at all? People can simply use the package/port to install a supported version and the base distribution can simply have cwm as its main wm. Lots of people use the base fvwm. Which works fine for them, even if older. Also fvwm is easier to work than cwm when you don't know either. I agree. The fact that there's a newer version of FVWM in ports is fine; FVWM in base, despite being older might be a minor nuisance, but not insurmountable. One thing we can do is re-do some of the useful code. I've been playing a bit with the newer one. One thing I really would like is for chromium (video) and fvwm to play nice with each other, namely an implementation of the stuff that makes it possible to go fullscreen and back. Point me in the right direction, and I will look at rewriting this under a reasonable licence...
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 08:12:53PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: Hi, On 15 September 2013 11:48, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas j...@wxcvbn.org wrote: James Griffin j...@kontrol.kode5.net writes: * Thomas Adam tho...@xteddy.org [2013-09-12 10:17:56 +0100]: On 12 September 2013 06:10, Carson Chittom car...@wistly.net wrote: Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update? That is I. Unfortunately, FVWM cannot be relicensed. -- Thomas Adam If it can't be relicensed so an up-to-date version can be included in the base distribution then is there much point in it being there at all? People can simply use the package/port to install a supported version and the base distribution can simply have cwm as its main wm. Lots of people use the base fvwm. Which works fine for them, even if older. Also fvwm is easier to work than cwm when you don't know either. I agree. The fact that there's a newer version of FVWM in ports is fine; FVWM in base, despite being older might be a minor nuisance, but not insurmountable. One thing we can do is re-do some of the useful code. I've been playing a bit with the newer one. One thing I really would like is for chromium (video) and fvwm to play nice with each other, namely an implementation of the stuff that makes it possible to go fullscreen and back. Point me in the right direction, and I will look at rewriting this under a reasonable licence... Enhanced Window Manager Hints.
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
Marc, On 15 September 2013 21:34, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 08:12:53PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: Hi, On 15 September 2013 11:48, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas j...@wxcvbn.org wrote: James Griffin j...@kontrol.kode5.net writes: * Thomas Adam tho...@xteddy.org [2013-09-12 10:17:56 +0100]: On 12 September 2013 06:10, Carson Chittom car...@wistly.net wrote: Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update? That is I. Unfortunately, FVWM cannot be relicensed. -- Thomas Adam If it can't be relicensed so an up-to-date version can be included in the base distribution then is there much point in it being there at all? People can simply use the package/port to install a supported version and the base distribution can simply have cwm as its main wm. Lots of people use the base fvwm. Which works fine for them, even if older. Also fvwm is easier to work than cwm when you don't know either. I agree. The fact that there's a newer version of FVWM in ports is fine; FVWM in base, despite being older might be a minor nuisance, but not insurmountable. One thing we can do is re-do some of the useful code. Unfortunately, whilst this might work for very simple things, you're on to something of a lost cause in the grander scheme of things (read: you might as well just write your own window manager.) I'd dearly love to be able to relicence FVWM, but that requires something I cannot do for a twenty year project. It's a real shame, but there's code added there from all sorts of proprietary companies over the years, and contacting them in nigh impossible. I've been playing a bit with the newer one. One thing I really would like is for chromium (video) and fvwm to play nice with each other, namely an implementation of the stuff that makes it possible to go fullscreen and back. Point me in the right direction, and I will look at rewriting this under a reasonable licence... This is where it'll go south. You need EWMH support for this, and you can't just pick-and-choose the best bits and shoe-horn it in to that FVWM version at all easily. The undertaking would be quite big. -- Thomas Adam
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:10:36AM -0500, Carson Chittom wrote: Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update? I do know he is stepping down from the development, forums and wiki of fvwm2 - announced earlier this week.
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
On 12 September 2013 06:10, Carson Chittom car...@wistly.net wrote: Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update? That is I. Unfortunately, FVWM cannot be relicensed. -- Thomas Adam
Re: fvwm in base [was: X -configure segmentation fault]
Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs writes: In fact, fvwm is in base part. A while ago, there was a message to misc from the fvwm developer about relicensing fvwm to allow a more recent version into base. I wonder if there is any status update?
