On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 01:34:38PM -0700, msib...@crosswire.com wrote: > > Not trying to piss anyone off. IMHO, I'm just stating the obvious. There > is more holding FVWM back than what can be fixed with debugging. >
Holding FVWM back from what? FVWM does its function really well. It is a configurable and stable wm that works on most systems. Sure there are a few things here and there that could be added or improved in fvwm and some bigger projects that would be nice, yet over all FVWM preforms its task well. I don't see FVWM being held back from anything. People use it for different reasons. I myself use FVWM because it is fun, light weight, and requires few dependencies. I have the ability to do most of what I want out of a WM (sure some things are lacking but they aren't a game breaker). If I didn't want to use a text based config file, or really wanted a different widget set there are plenty of other choices of WMs or even DEs to choose from. I don't think it was ever in FVWMs goals to be the all-in-one window manager. Over the 20 years of fvwm's existance there have been forks, derivatives, and even complete rewrites of these forks (spawning a new window manager) that take some ideas from FVWM, but these are no longer FVWM. It seems xfce even had its origins from FVWM but after a few complete rewrites is now a full desktop envorment. So this idea is not new, and many people really enjoy some of the rewrites of the derivatives, but FVWM is still around. jaimos
