Hello fvwmers,
I'm writing an article for the Linux Magazine about fvwm. Given the
rise of GNOME3 and Unity, there seems to be a trend of people turning
away from their desktop environments for simpler solutions. I've been
using fvwm for many years and thought that since there's been a stable
rel
Hi,
On 8 August 2011 01:13, Harry portobello wrote:
> Hello fvwmers,
Does anyone have a contact addr for Thomas Adam? Ive been told he's
the person to talk to about fvwm's direction???
Thanks!
Harry
On 8 August 2011 01:13, Harry portobello wrote:
> Hello fvwmers,
>
> I'm writing an article for the Linux Magazine about fvwm. Given the
> rise of GNOME3 and Unity, there seems to be a trend of people turning
> away from their desktop environments for simpler solutions. I&
Hi all,
I've been reading the fvwm list for ages and recently subscribed
because of the article I'm currently writing - so although I've not
been on this list very long I feel as though I am no stranger to it;
mail archives can be a great thing, even more since a lot of them are
made public. :)
A
Hullo,
On 31 August 2011 09:06, Thomas Funk wrote:
> Hi Harry,
>
> as I red your email, my first impression was, to take up the cudgels for
> Thomas
> and will told you, that this posting hasn't belong on a public board. But
> anyway,
> you've done it, so I add one's two cents ...
>
> Yes, Thom
DERSTANDING
>
> * (when two people are in a dispute, then the chance
> to elegantly solve the dispute increases dramatically
> when both persons try to explain and understand
> each other)
>
> - invite people to apply this principle when they
&
On 20 October 2011 09:13, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:51:59AM -0700, elliot s wrote:
>> Version 2.6.3:
>> Previous versions only added the "(%t)" when there was a repeated name.
>> The new code always adds it.
>
> This is not a bug, but rather very much by deliberate design. T
hullo,
On 19 October 2011 18:51, elliot s wrote:
> Version 2.6.3:
> Previous versions only added the "(%t)" when there was a repeated name.
> The new code always adds it.
> I worked around the %t in add_window.c by checking if count was
> non-zero, tho that wouldnt kill the parens, which i change
2011/10/29 Thomas Adam :
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:38:36PM +0200, Michael Großer wrote:
>> Thomas Adam wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37:04PM +0100, Harry portobello wrote:
>> >> hullo,
>> >>
>> >> On 19 October 2011 18:51, el
hullo,
2011/10/30 Thomas Adam :
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 08:09:52PM +0000, Harry portobello wrote:
>> How do i do this with FvwmEvent? Thanks..
>
> Something like:
>
> DestroyFunc CountWindow
> AddToFunc CountWindow
> + I SetEnv WindowCount 0
> +
hi,
On 2 September 2011 20:10, Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
> This sounds promising - I can test it on monday and will report back then.
i think i have similar problems to you - was this fixed in fvwm ever?
Harry
hi,
i like the cvs version of fvwm and its been ages since the last release [2.6.3]
when will we see 2.6.4?
Harry
On 15 January 2012 20:32, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:06:04AM +0000, Harry portobello wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> i like the cvs version of fvwm and its been ages since the last release
>> [2.6.3]
>>
>> when will we see 2.6.4?
>
> When
hi,
2012/1/19 Jason Weber :
> Perhaps if you are open minded to tools that might be more effective
> at navigating
> windows than KDE or others do, I would also suggest taking a look at the
> FvwmProxy. It is a bit of a departure from the uncorrelated
> box-in-the-middle paradigm.
> It can handle
hi,
is it possible to supply money, a donation, to the fvwm project?
if i did this, where would it go, to what purpose? would i be allowed
to say where it went?
Harry
On 29 January 2012 08:08, Viktor Griph wrote:
> 2012/1/27 Harry portobello :
>> we have lots of patches like adding round corners and fluxbox handels
>> which have not been added to fvwm in long time - and why is this? why
>> isnt the maintainer - thomas - adding these?
&
On 30 January 2012 14:37, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> | > [...] There are several reasons as of why certain patches aren't
> | > accepted. Some of the patches affect areas of fvwm which in the long
> | > term goal should be replaced by modules. Others are unclean, and no
> | > one has been willing t
17 matches
Mail list logo
