Subject: Re: Notification: incoming/157

From: [email-masked] (Fabien Villard)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:43:09 +0100

>Can we do anything about it (without breaking the code again,
>of course)? People who have to use Exceed to get fvwm2 are unlucky
>enough even without us telling them they should get a real OS
>if they want to run fvwm2 smoothly.

        Just to say that I'm  very very pleased to read that, Dominik.
I have some poor co-workers fighting against both the m$ thing and the
people who decide to use it without  knowledge  and programs like fvwm
may help.  Thanks to you all for the results and the goodwilling.
        Fab.

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 21:26:06 -0500 (EST)

Tim Phipps <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Bob Woodside wrote:
> It's probably best to get the original victim to test this
> out.

	I sent him a reply earlier today from Jitterbug. We'll
see whether we get any response. I did have a little trouble
sending it - the first 3 tries failed. On the fourth, Jitterbug
reported success, but that's the time I forgot to copy the
workers list.

> Another thing, this patch gives me problems with RaiseLower. I think
> it might be something to do with Scr.LastRaised not getting set with
> NoAvoidUn...

	RaiseLower is working fine for me - under a regular X server
on a Unix system. I wonder if this is another Exceed malfunction. The
spot where Scr.LastWindowRaised gets set is before we enter the changed
code.

	I think it's fairly apparent now, though, that there are severe
limitations to what we can do to improve the lot of Exceed victims.
Actually, that should probably be "Windows victims": I think that
trying to mix Windows-managed and Fvwm-managed windows on a Windows
desktop is probably a doomed venture from the start.

	If the original victim - or anyone else, for that matter -
reports that this patch solved his problem and he's ecstatically
happy to have things working as they did before, then I'd argue that
we should consider doing something formally with the patch. Otherwise,
we should let it fade into obscurity.

- Bob