Subject: FVWM: Windows managers: do we need a new one?

From: Brady Montz <[email-masked]>
Date: 07 Jul 1997 14:47:33 -0700

About all this rat discussion. I think people are being a bit harsh about
Chuck. I only have one nit about 2.0.45 (after I quit netscape I can't use my
number pad to switch pages like I usually do until I switch pages using
FvwmPager). Other than that, I certainly haven't been inconvienanced at all by
there not being a new fvwm version. I maintain a module for fvwm (FvwmIconMan)
and I've been happily releasing new versions of it over the last few months
that people can use without having to wait for a new fvwm. This is cool. It's
not something that the competitors can claim, since they don't have modules.

Now, as for possible new directions for fvwm, or writing a new window manager,
here are my thoughts. I've been tinkering with this for the last few months,
and if I had the time it's something I would really like to do. But there's
that pesky matter of a thesis ...

To me fvwm has two cool features: modules and ICCCM compliance. It's the only
viable window manager with the first, and it seems heads and shoulders above
most others in the second. 

A better window manager (to me) would take the module idea to the logical
extreme:

1. The current fvwm type modules could benefit from a more symmetrical,
   tightly coupled interface. If modules had controlled access to fvwm state,
   like the window list or the window decorations, they could do cool stuff. 

2. Other things could be modularized as well. I envision modules for every way
   that fvwm interacts with it's environment: a config module which handles
   reading the .fvw2rc (having configurability and choice here would make it
   easy for someone to write a module which propogates configuration info from
   one login session to the next, for example), a module which handles window
   decorations (would remove the whole reason for fvwm95's existance), a
   module which handles policy decisions (what's encoded in the Style
   commands), a module which interacts with the underlying windowing system
   (boy it would be cool to use fvwm on windows, or you could have nested
   window managers like plan 9), etc.

3. A major nit for me now is how the cool sexy pixmap code which handles the
   new borderstyle stuff is not usable by modules (like FvwmIconMan and
   FvwmButtons). My plan is to fix this after fvwm2 is officially released, as
   it would require some major code rewriting. In an ideal world it would be
   nice if there was some module responsible for how everything looked, and
   everything else, fvwm and modules included, could rely on it for such
   things. 

The obvious fear is "Oh god, it's Mach!" This obviously would be a concern,
but I suspect that's not necessarily the case. If it turns out that everybody
uses all the same modules, and having all these modules doesn't result in
meaningful choice, then it would suck because you pay the penaltly without
getting anything. If however, this supremo modularity allows for lots of
options, then it's a win. People could use what they want and not have to have
the rest. We wouldn't have people running off and creating fvwm95 just because
they want to have different titlebars and a few extra commands. I think the
Winlist/FvwmIconBox/FvwmWinList/FvwmIconMan situation is a good
example. People can use which one they want without the memory penalty of
having all three built in, and I can make changes at will to FvwmIconMan
without asking anybody's permission. BUT, when the pixmap button/titlebar
stuff was being added, it really gummed all sorts of things up trying to
shoehorn it into fvwm.

I don't care about whether this hypothetical window manager looks as good as
Enlightenment. I only care that somebody else could write a few modules that
would make it look as good. 

If this manager were to be written, whether as fvwm 3.0 or as a totally new
beast, it's probably unwise to use too much of the current fvwm code. It's
just not up to it. 

If anybody sees potential here, and knows how to program and wants to help,
I'd be happy to talk about it more.

-- 
 Brady Montz
 [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 07 Jul 1997 17:34:07 -0500

>>>>> "BM" == Brady Montz <[email-masked]> writes:

BM> About all this rat discussion. I think people are being a bit harsh
BM> about Chuck.

People get busy, and the allure of being semi-famous and hacking on cool
software only lasts for so long before it gets to be work like everything
else.

I've been involved with a project for some time how which parallels closely
the development of FVWM.  It's the Majordomo mailing list manager (which,
not coincidentally, is what runs this list).  It has a long history and is
popular, it's free, it's been hacked on for a long while now and it has a
current maintainer who is busy and goes for months at a time without
contributing or answers users' questions.  People were still contributing,
but the code was getting very messy and it badly needed a rewrite.

I thought to complain about it, but I instead chose to do something about
it and begin a complete rewrite, from the ground up, with no code
surviving.  That was in early December.  I'm just now getting close to
releasing an alpha version that has most of the necessary functionality,
and am still several months from a full release.

The point is not that you shouldn't complain; complainers have a place
along side critics and contributors.  The real point is that if someone has
the desire, the balls, or the plain stupidity it requires to step in and
say "I'm going to do what needs to be done" then they should do it, and
they should do it soon.  I really doubt Chuck or anyone here would stand in
their way.  Some might snicker and some might gape in disbelief, but guess
what: that's what it's going to take.  Someone has to champion the cause,
even if there is a move to a distributed development model.  I'll even host
the depot if someone wants to get me up to speed on CVS (or Perforce, which
is nicer and free for Linux).  But I can't do the patch integration.

Either that, or everyone needs to make the decision to give up and roll
over everything that FVWM is into some other window manager.

 - J<