On 25 May 2013 16:53, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:19:56AM +0000, z...@sdf.org wrote: >> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 06:48:05PM -0400, Patrick Mc(avery wrote: >> > I tried to load Fluxbox and was disappointed with it. It had several >> > menubuttons for application that were not yet installed. >> >> There is more than just Fluxbox out there. That's UNIX world, it >> is up to you and you have plenty of choices. >> >> Bloatware like Gnome, XFCE, KDE and other crap is available through ports. >> >> Minimalistic versions like fvwm, cwm are waiting to be configured to meet >> your special needs. And in fact, if you cut through the clutter of options >> and manpages, you might be much more satisfied than using some windows >> version where you just can tick an option on or off. > > We're still waiting for someone with time on his hands to take over fvwm > development.
I can help there, being the only upstream developer for FVWM for now. Specifically, what is it which is lacking from your point of view which needs amending? A statement of "very little support for modern X" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's the _behaviour_ from FVWM which you perceive as lacking? > Specifically, the upstream development team DID switch to GPL, so we're > stranded with the one in xenocara, with very very little support for modern > X, which is a shame... Hmm. I too find that somewhat irritating also. -- Thomas Adam
