2012/2/24 Thomas Adam :
> God no. FVWM is not elitist. People will either use it, or not. People
> can have ideas, and do. People will have opinions and share them. Or not.
> But if/when they do, we'll discuss them, and sometimes good things come of
> them.
>
> This isn't endemic to this proj
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:06:46AM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> All,
>
> Whilst I appreciate that organisations need not worry about this until the
> end of February, I'll be moving house then so I need to start thinking about
> this now, rather than later.
And to make a start on this, I've create
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 08:47:12AM -0500, MK wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:16:58 +
> Thomas Adam wrote:
> > But until we decide to do it that way, it's a little moot, and it
> > would require some thought and design.
> >
> > Great for a project for GSoC I'd say, because thankfully I've plen
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:16:58 +
Thomas Adam wrote:
> But until we decide to do it that way, it's a little moot, and it
> would require some thought and design.
>
> Great for a project for GSoC I'd say, because thankfully I've plenty
> of ideas on this. :P
I like these ideas too, although I'l
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 06:32:46PM -0500, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> The simple answer is that a good Pythonic or Perl-oid or Ruby-oid
> library will expose a different sort of interface than a C-level FFI.
Exactly. I don't care if some other language decided not to expose the C
api those languag
[Some brief comments now, more considered ones later.]
| > Here are two thoughts on relatively self-contained potential FVWM GSoC
| > projects:
| >
| > * a module that is the inverse of FvwmCommand; call it FvwmQuery.
| > Where FvwmCommand allows shell scripts to send commands to FVWM,
| > F
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 05:56:51PM -0500, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> Here are two thoughts on relatively self-contained potential FVWM GSoC
> projects:
>
> * a module that is the inverse of FvwmCommand; call it FvwmQuery.
> Where FvwmCommand allows shell scripts to send commands to FVWM,
> Fv
Here are two thoughts on relatively self-contained potential FVWM GSoC
projects:
* a module that is the inverse of FvwmCommand; call it FvwmQuery.
Where FvwmCommand allows shell scripts to send commands to FVWM,
FvwmQuery would allow them to get information from it.
The FVWM module interf
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:54:25AM +0100, Michael Großer wrote:
> Dan Espen wrote:
> > writes:
> >> Perhaps I'm making a bad
> >> assumption. Is increased usership a goal of the FVWM development team?
> >
> > Fvwm is for users that want complete control of their desktop with
> > minimal resource
On 02/24/2012 07:56 AM, msib...@crosswire.com wrote:
Ok,
I give. There is no better way than FVWM.
Thanks!
That was not the point, it is just another extreme stance. FVWM is good
at what it does, dosen't mean it is the best, as this is usually
personal opinion. A rewrite of FVWM would only
Ok,
I give. There is no better way than FVWM.
Thanks!
Dan Espen wrote:
> writes:
>> Perhaps I'm making a bad
>> assumption. Is increased usership a goal of the FVWM development team?
>
> Fvwm is for users that want complete control of their desktop with
> minimal resource use and ultimate flexibility.
>
"http://www.fvwm.org"; should contain a lin
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 03:58:13PM -0700, msib...@crosswire.com wrote:
> SNIP
[I really don't like biting for what is an obvious flamewar, but sometimes
there's useful bits of fallacy which need busting through, so I'll be
picking those up and side-stepping the bait.]
> FVWM is not more portable t
writes:
>>Subject: Re: FVWM: GSoC 2012: Project ideas
>>From: Jaimos Skriletz
>>Date: Thu, February 23, 2012 4:32 pm
>>To: fvwm@fvwm.org
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 01:34:38PM -0700, msib...@crosswire.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Not t
>
>
> Original Message
>Subject: Re: FVWM: GSoC 2012: Project ideas
>From: Jaimos Skriletz
>Date: Thu, February 23, 2012 4:32 pm
>To: fvwm@fvwm.org
>
>
>On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 01:34:38PM -0700, msib...@crosswire.com wrote:
>>
>> Not
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
confi
Am Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2012 schrieb msib...@crosswire.com:
> A scratch rewrite in C++, using WxWidgets and embedding the
> configuration elements in sqlite, killing configuration files for good
> and ever. There is a point at which you are doing yourself a favor by
> shooting the horse instead
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 01:34:38PM -0700, msib...@crosswire.com wrote:
>
> A scratch rewrite in C++, using WxWidgets and embedding the
Rewrites do not work. They really don't. IBM can tell you that from
experience.
As for basing a window manager off a widget library, I will point you
towards t
A scratch rewrite in C++, using WxWidgets and embedding the
configuration elements in sqlite, killing configuration files for good
and ever. There is a point at which you are doing yourself a favor by
shooting the horse instead of feeding it.
Not trying to piss anyone off. IMHO, I'm just stating
On 02/17/2012 03:49 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Thomas Adam writes:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:10:54PM -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
2) Rewrite the menu syntax and redsign the object, there was some talk
about this on the mailing list years ago now and some good ideas for
And the link to that threa
Thomas Adam writes:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:49:00PM -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Thomas Adam writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:10:54PM -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
>> >> > > 2) Rewrite the menu syntax and redsign the object, there was some talk
>> >> > > about this on the mailing l
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:49:00PM -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> Thomas Adam writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:10:54PM -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
> >> > > 2) Rewrite the menu syntax and redsign the object, there was some talk
> >> > > about this on the mailing list years ago now and some go
Thomas Adam writes:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:10:54PM -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
>> > > 2) Rewrite the menu syntax and redsign the object, there was some talk
>> > > about this on the mailing list years ago now and some good ideas for
>> >
>> > And the link to that thread is?
>> >
>>
>>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:10:54PM -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
> > > 2) Rewrite the menu syntax and redsign the object, there was some talk
> > > about this on the mailing list years ago now and some good ideas for
> >
> > And the link to that thread is?
> >
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/fvw
> > 2) Rewrite the menu syntax and redsign the object, there was some talk
> > about this on the mailing list years ago now and some good ideas for
>
> And the link to that thread is?
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@lists.math.uh.edu/msg07167.html
Seems like the idea was liked at the
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:44:12PM -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote:
> 1) Modify/extend the current menu system to offer more configurability,
> the main thing I am looking for here is say allow for multiple mouse
> bindings per menu entry (a right click and left click could do different
> things). I t
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:06:46PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:38:06PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> > "Thomas Adam" wrote:
> > >> Comments welcome, or even ideas.
Another suggestion for possible projects (seems this list is getting big so any
presepctive programer will
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:38:06PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> "Thomas Adam" wrote:
> >> Comments welcome, or even ideas.
> What about
>
> - RANDR support? Switching resolutions without restart Fvwm would be nice.
This one is fine. I've already a head-start in this.
> - extend FvwmForm? I used
"Thomas Adam" wrote:
>> Comments welcome, or even ideas.
What about
- RANDR support? Switching resolutions without restart Fvwm would be nice.
- extend FvwmForm? I used it in my config, but it lacks in some places.
I think, it's a nice tool to create GUI based parts.
It could replace FvwmGtk
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:33:51AM -0500, MK wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:45:07 +
> Thomas Adam wrote:
> > No more so than Name, or Resource would be, yes.
>
> Those are passed thru from xlib, correct? I did not realize fvwm used
> all that, I've only ever just used the name, but looking
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:46:34 +
Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:22:41AM -0500, MK wrote:
> > WRT asciidoc, Thomas mentions stuff "within the Documentation/
> > directory", but I don't know what this refers to (there is no such
> > directory in the 2.6.4 source). In any case, I
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:45:07 +
Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:23:03AM -0500, MK wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:06:46 +
> > Thomas Adam wrote:
> > > * Style clean-up (Difficulty: Easy):
> > >
> > > This would involve thinking about the internal state of styles.
> >
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:22:41AM -0500, MK wrote:
> WRT asciidoc, Thomas mentions stuff "within the Documentation/
> directory", but I don't know what this refers to (there is no such
> directory in the 2.6.4 source). In any case, I would think that it
> should not be hard to parse/scrape/whatev
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:23:03AM -0500, MK wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:06:46 +
> Thomas Adam wrote:
>
> > Now that 2.6.0 is out, I'm proposing the following project (some of
> > which are a continuation from previous GSoC proposals) -- none of
> > which are listed in any order.
> >
> >
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:57:28 -0500
Dan Espen wrote:
> Thomas Adam writes:
> > Now that 2.6.0 is out, I'm proposing the following project (some of
> > which are a continuation from previous GSoC proposals) -- none of
> > which are listed in any order.
>
> Like all open source work,
> the project
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:06:46 +
Thomas Adam wrote:
> Now that 2.6.0 is out, I'm proposing the following project (some of
> which are a continuation from previous GSoC proposals) -- none of
> which are listed in any order.
>
> * Style clean-up (Difficulty: Easy):
>
> This would involve thin
Thomas Adam writes:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:57:28AM -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>> I'd like to see the initial appearance issue get some attention.
>>
>> I'm working close to that area:
>>
>> Right now, I'm trying to understand xdg menus.
>> We make an entry in the FvwmMenu marked:
>>
>> D: De
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:57:28AM -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> Thomas Adam writes:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Whilst I appreciate that organisations need not worry about this until the
> > end of February, I'll be moving house then so I need to start thinking about
> > this now, rather than later.
> >
> >
Thomas Adam writes:
> All,
>
> Whilst I appreciate that organisations need not worry about this until the
> end of February, I'll be moving house then so I need to start thinking about
> this now, rather than later.
>
> Now that 2.6.0 is out, I'm proposing the following project (some of which
> a
39 matches
Mail list logo
