Subject: FVWM: New default fvwm configuration

From: Thomas Adam <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 02:24:47 +0100

Hello, all -

This isn't an official announcement, but myself and Nick Fortune have
been discussing [1] changing the default config file which is currently
shipped with Fvwm.  For many the styles and workings of it are too
archaic for today's more 'modern' tastes.

So we came up with our own proposal, and have been hacking on it since.
There has been some feedback, but it is limiting, and we could ideally
do with more, before we approach fvwm-workers with our proposal.  The
tarball [2] contains the snapshot of 2.5.12 - you'll have to compile it
in the normal way.  I suggest if you try this that you create a new user
and use Xnest to test it, or move your ~/.fvwm directory out of the way
beforehand, as some files may get overwritten.

The installation instructions do not differ.   There is documentation
for the interface, and we hope that a lot of it is intuitive enough such
that it shouldn't require much in the way of explanation about how to
navigate things, etc.

The emphasis of the proposed configuration is that fvwm is all about
doing this Your Way (tm) - there will be people who hate the config file
produced.  In a way, I'm hoping this reaction will spur them on to
change things for themselves.  The config files are documented without
reproducing the manpage in so doing.  Where applicable at the foot of
the document are references to other sources of material which might be
of benefit.

-- Thomas Adam

 [1] http://fvwm.lair.be/viewtopic.php?t=205
 [2] http://edulinux.homeunix.org/~n6tadam/fvwm/fvwm-2.5.12-newconfig.tar.gz
--  
"One of us is a cigar stand, and one of us is a lovely blue incandescent
guillotine" -- Stephen Malkmus, "Type Slowly" from "Brighten The Corners"
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Parv <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:46:29 -0400

in message <[email-masked]>,
wrote Thomas Adam thusly...
> archaic for today's more 'modern' tastes.
...
> tarball [2] contains the snapshot of 2.5.12

I am/was bit puzzled as to the phrases used in your email & messages
posted in URL[1].

The exchange posted on lair.be is about the user configuration file
for fvwm(1).  Your use of "default config file..." and "tarball [2]
contains the snapshot of 2.5.12", I got the impression that you were
referring to the configure script (which creates the Makefile).

So, if you were indeed referring to the user configuration file, why
is there a need for the "tarball ... contains the snapshot of
2.5.12"?  Does the tarball actually contain fvwm 2.5.12 sources?
Why, if so?  Or, does the tarball contain only the replacement
default user configuration file(s)?

  - Parv

--

---

From: Thomas Adam <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 03:50:55 +0100

> referring to the configure script (which creates the Makefile).

Not quite.  The tarball contains a modified snapshot of fvwm-2.5.12
which contains the configuration files and some internal coding changes
to fvwm itself which reflects the config file.  The reason why we're not
just releasing the config files is that fvwm has to be subtly changed -
to render a menu if no config file is found, etc.  They're sublte, yet
important.

HTH,

-- Thomas Adam

---

From: Parv <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:59:02 -0400

in message <[email-masked]>,
wrote Thomas Adam thusly...
> > The exchange posted on lair.be is about the user configuration
> > file for fvwm(1). Your use of "default config file..." and
> > "tarball [2] contains the snapshot of 2.5.12", I got the
> > impression that you were referring to the configure script
> > (which creates the Makefile).
> 
> Not quite.  The tarball contains a modified snapshot of
> fvwm-2.5.12 which contains the configuration files and some
> internal coding changes to fvwm itself which reflects the config
> file.  The reason why we're not just releasing the config files is
> that fvwm has to be subtly changed - to render a menu if no config
> file is found, etc.

Well, that answers all of my questions.  Thanks.

  - Parv

--

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:02:50 -0400

>  [2] http://edulinux.homeunix.org/~n6tadam/fvwm/fvwm-2.5.12-newconfig.tar.gz

That's the whole source tree.
How about a patch?

-- 
Dan Espen                           E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Thomas Adam <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:11:45 +0100

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:02:50PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> That's the whole source tree. How about a patch?

I realise this.  :)  I'll be doing this when we approach fvwm-workers on
a more 'formal' basis, if I can call it that.  For now, I'm just after
feedback.

-- Thomas Adam

---

From: Ryan Daly <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:19:18 -0400

We just had a meeting where I work trying to decide on a standard window
manager for our desktop users.  We use RHEL WS 3 and 4 on the desktop,
and that obviously ships with Gnome and KDE to use.  However, both of
those wm's are big and fat.  It would be nice to have user-modifiable
options in FVWM without telling them they need to go and edit their
configuration files manually.

Is there any solution for the non-technical FVWM user?
--

-- 
Ryan Daly <[email-masked]>
CTCnet ISP

---

From: Nick Fortune <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 16:09:54 +0100

Well, as far as the new default config goes, we're not planning on any 
such tool. One of things we don't want fvwm to lose is the impetus
to go and design your own desktop. We thought a configuration tool
would come to be seen as the only way to configure FVWM, and that
the limitations of the tool taken as limitations in the WM.

That said, it shouldn't be too hard to design one with FvwmScript.
At least, not for a fairly small subset of the possible options.

The trick would be getting optimum option set for the user group.
That's going to be asier for a smallish group with a more or less
common purpose than for a large one. So I think I'd probably still
shy away from including a config tool as an out of the box option.

Or you could consider a custom desktop design for your users. I 
think one of great untapped potententials of FVWM is the prospect
of building your business logic and in house apps directly into the 
computer desktop. Of course, that works better if you have large
numbers of employees all using the applciation set in the same way.

---

From: Thomas Adam <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 16:17:38 +0100

[ Please do not top-post ]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 09:19:18AM -0400, Ryan Daly wrote:
> Is there any solution for the non-technical FVWM user? --

Well, any configuration file will do, although I suspect you might want
to look at fvwm-themes [1].  That provides a configuration framework,
with lots of different styles that the user(s) can change on-the-fly,
mix and match, etc.  No need or knowledge of config files is really
needed.

-- Thomas Adam

 [1] http://fvwm-themes.sf.net