Subject: FVWM: 1.24 or 2.x ?

From: Nidhogg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 23:13:00 +0100

Greetings.

I'm new to this list and to linux in general, but I suppose this would be
the right place to ask this :)
I recently installed Linux (Redhat 4.2), and I've decided to start with the
fvwm window manager, as I understand it's easy to work with, yet highly
customizeable.
What I'm wondering is, should I use 1.24 or the latest 2.x ? As 1.24 is the
latest "official" version, that's what I have. But does 2.x use the same
configurations ? Like, can I use the old config options + new ones, or are
the two versions not 100% compatible ? Also, are there a lot of bugs in 2.x ?

Thanks for any advice and guidance into the wonderfull world of linux :)

               _     _ _ 
  ______   ___(_)   | | |     http://www.blood-runs-deep.org/nidhogg/
  \_    \ /_  \_  __| | |__   ___   __ _  __ _ 
   / /\ \  / /| |/ _` | `_ \ / _ \ / _` |/ _` | [email-masked]
/\/ /_ \ \/ / | | (_| | | | | (_) | (_| | (_| | [email-masked]
\____/ /___/  |_|\__,_|_| |_|\___/ \__  |\__  | [email-masked]
Channel Manager #Blood_Runs_Deep    __| | __| | [email-masked]
http://www.blood-runs-deep.org/    (___/ (___/
Channel Admin #Eternal_Night
http://www.aha.at/eternal_night/

--
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: Bruce Stephens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 09:51:58 +0000

[email-masked] said:
> What I'm wondering is, should I use 1.24 or the latest 2.x ? As 1.24
> is the latest "official" version, that's what I have. But does 2.x use
> the same configurations ? Like, can I use the old config options + new
> ones, or are the two versions not 100% compatible ? Also, are there a
> lot of bugs in 2.x ? 

Use the latest 2.x (2.0.46, I think).  The configurations are different, and 
doubtless there are bugs in 2.x, but you aren't likely to notice them.  RedHat 
comes with TheNextLevel, a set of configurations for fvwm95 (a modified fvwm2) 
which you may find convenient to start off with.

---

From: Greg Fall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:47:49 -0500 (EST)

> which you may find convenient to start off with.

There is a utility out there for converting your files from version 1 to
version 2.  I forget what it is called.

I disagree about TheNextLevel; I don't like it at all.  And it is fvwm-95
I believe.  Also, don't quote me on it for a few more days, but I'm pretty
sure Red Hat has abandoned TheNextLevel in Red Hat 5.0.

G.F.

--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--

Greg Fall
[email-masked]
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~gmfall

---

From: Viorel Anghel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:02:50 +0200 (EET)

> version 2.  I forget what it is called.

fvwmrc_convert (in utils directory)

> sure Red Hat has abandoned TheNextLevel in Red Hat 5.0.

Good news ;-)

vang

---

From: Bruce Stephens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 15:27:23 +0000

>  Good news ;-) 

It is a bit yucky.  On the other hand, it's nice to have something that works 
out of the box, and TNL does that.  It uses FvwmM4 quite neatly to fiddle with 
menus depending on what executables happen to be installed.

I hope Red Hat replace it with something similarly usable.

---

From: Cristian Tibirna <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 10:31:41 -0500

> > sure Red Hat has abandoned TheNextLevel in Red Hat 5.0.
Me too, I disagree. Me too, I think these would be good news. But no,
the replacement is called AnotherLevel. Just another ...

In fact, must give to the Caesar what's his. TheNextLevel is a Good
Thing (TM) for newbies (they get inteligent selective wm start, menus
creation) or for scripting genies (they get a new toy :-). But with poor
half-hackers, as myself, a simple, a la X11 distrib, .xinitrc is the
best thing.

At least we can get the icons whitout even the effort to search them on
the net :-).

				Cristian

---

From: Donovan Rebbechi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:06:54 -0500 (EST)

_____________________________________________________

Donovan Rebbechi, Lord of the Elves, 
Dept of Mathematics, Rutgers University Newark

Visit my webpage: http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord
*****************************************************

> sure Red Hat has abandoned TheNextLevel in Red Hat 5.0.
The Next Level is a good place to start if you are already familiar with
Win95 and want to migrate to X. It makes the transition a little
easier, even if it is little more than a crutch for newbies. But sooneror
later, most users will dispose of the task bar vastly inferior to the
pager) and either hack it beyond recognition or migrate
to another WM. 

My impression is that patches/updates are being released for fvwm2, and
fvwm2 probably has a brighter future. It's very similar to fvwm1x though.

---

From: "David A. Rogers" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:06:41 -0600

At 03:27 PM 12/2/97 +0000, Bruce Stephens wrote:
>out of the box, and TNL does that.

Only if you consider a poor imitation of a so-so interface "working".

I've been a Windows / Win32 programmer for 10 years now.  I am _not_ an
habitual MS basher *.  But Windows95 is only a good gui when compared to
Win 3.1.  There are a number of GUIs that are prettier and more useful.

* I have been known to wonder aloud (from time to time) what the folks at
MS are using for brains -- but that's another story.

Regards,
David

---

From: Bruce Stephens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 10:19:30 +0000

[email-masked] said:
> But Windows95 is only a good gui when compared to Win 3.1.  There are
> a number of GUIs that are prettier and more useful. 

Well, sure.  Fvwm95 has some nice features which fvwm2 could usefully steal, 
however.  The TaskBar hiding feature is nice, for example.  I have an 
FvwmButtons with a bunch of things stuck in it (pager, xclipboard, etc.) which 
sits at the bottom of my screen.  It would be nice (as an option) to have it 
disappear like the taskbar can, so I'd get at it by moving my mouse over it.  
Better than StaysOnTop, because it would only take a couple of pixels.  
Similarly, I can see this would be nice for icon boxes.

---

From: Donovan Rebbechi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:07:29 -0500 (EST)

> Similarly, I can see this would be nice for icon boxes.
In practice, you can come pretty close to attaining this kind of effect by
using a keybinding for the 'lower' and 'raise' functions. Provided you
don't have a lot of windows on top of each other (and the whole point of
virtual deskspace is that you can place the windows side by side) this
will popup whatver button device you have ; it 'pops-down' the one in
front, 
so this will bring your button bars/etc to the foreground Provided that
they aren't concealed by multiple windows..
Usually, because the
bars/buttons  are in the corner, they aren't covered by more
than one window at a time.

-- Donovan

---

From: Bruce Stephens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 11:24:40 +0000

[email-masked] said:
> In practice, you can come pretty close to attaining this kind of
> effect by using a keybinding for the 'lower' and 'raise' functions.

I guess so.  For that matter, I could bind a key out of the large number of 
spare keys I've got on the keyboard such that pressing the key would select 
the window.

As a user interface feature, though, I'd still maintain that Windows95's 
taskbar hiding is pretty neat.

In terms of a more general mechanism, how about allowing any window to have an 
alternative dormant representation (which would normally have StaysOnTop, and 
would ordinarily be on the edge of the screen).  When the pointer moves over 
such a dormant window, the active window reappears, and when the pointer is 
moved away, then after a decent interval, the window is unmapped and the 
dormant window reappears.  So the dormant window is a placeholder, with no 
buttons or anything (since it'll disappear as soon as you move the pointer 
over it, so you can't interact with it).

Don't know how this dormant window ought to be specified: width, length, 
colour etc., ought to be configurable.  Some people might want more (how about 
a version of Shaded windows done in this way?).

Windows95 allows people to drag the taskbar from one edge to another, but that 
seems unnecessary glitz.  Something like these dormant windows would be really 
handy, I think.