On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:40:50PM +1100, Tim Connors wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:29:27PM +1100, Tim Connors wrote: > > > > > >Geez, no fvwm users yet? > > >(Not that I usually answer these polls) > > > > > >Of course, I have a setup I have been happy with for 6 years, so it was > > >only 6 months back that I decided to upgrade from fvwm1 to 2. > > > > Well, quite. I've got a fvwm setup that I've been tuning for ~10 > > years. I made the swap to fvwm2 about 5 years ago. In fact, > > checking... Yay! my m4-ified fvwm2rc is still in the package as an > > example. I should probably update that, as by now it probably won't > > work too well. > > > > Fvwm is cool. It takes a fair bit of configuration, but it's fast, > > small and absolutely bomb-proof in my experience. And several of the > > newer WMs still don't match its features... > > Bulletproof my oath. One thing you *never* *ever* want to segfault is your > window manager. Because if you have been logged in for 60 days, there is a > lot of state stored on your desktop[1] that you don't want lost when the > WM dies, gives control back to X, and X quits on you. (I saw someone on a > solaris box with a 250 day uptime, using the same session of fvwm he > started on the first day (that was when he moved to that site)) > > The window manager should be the most reliable peice of software on the > system next to your kernel, and I can't say too many positive things about > the reliability of some WM's. > > As it is, I did have the occasional segfault while trialing FVWM 2.5 (the > unstable tree), and as such made a tiny shell script that continually > respawns fvwm as long as the exit code is greater than 130, and invoke > that instead if fvwm in my ~/.xsession > > As for configuration, my personal view is that the default configuration > for fvwm is crap. Not very poweful and crap. The reason people *think* > fvwm is crap, is because they never go past the default config. If there > was a better config straight off, maybe people wouldn't be turned away so > quickly?
I actually tried fvwm2 and left it because it takes too long to get the basic configuration right. I don't mind slowly improving the configuration as things move along and I see what I really need, but it really helps being able to get something mostly ok quickly and then learning slowly how to fix it. Spending two days building a proper configuration just to see if the window manager fits the bill is too long. It might be better then a proper basic configuration to have a proper configuration tool that could twick the menus, hotkeys, some basic look twicking and enable a hiding pager (on a small screen it can really help if the pager docks off somewhere and reappear when the mouse is over it). I tried the dotconfig thingy (Don't remember its exact name) and it was unusable, never producing a proper configuration. > > > [1]In the form of XEmacs buffers and layout, mozilla windows, 1001 xterms, > login session, etc. > > -- > TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ > We don't need no education > We don't need no thought control > -- Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
