Subject: FVWM: Re: Fvwm and Scwm

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:04:46 +0100

brian moore <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 01:10:09PM -0700, Greg Badros wrote:
> > But if all you want is static menus, then you probably can be happy with 
> > many simpler wm-s than even fvwm2.  Certainly there is overhead in
> > running a real languge, but fvwm2 already has a lot of the overhead of a 
> > real language while implementing only an underpowered configuration
> > dialect that aspires to be a real language.
> 
> I can't get the look and feel I want with other WM's.  I'm willing to
> bet money that the vast majority of fvwm users use static menus, with
> perhaps an M4-generated config based on installed software.  The menus
> certainly don't change during operation.

That is only because it is so difficult! If I only had the necessary
expressive power in fvwm2 itself, I wouldn't need extra modules.

[Just for reference. I was the one to start the lastest thread on
fvwm2 and configuration languages, though at that time I was more in
mind for TCL and tk. That has changed since then! I'm now firmly in
the scwm bandwagon.]

I usually run my computer at for weeks without loggin out - so I do
want to reconfigure my running fvwm. Maybe I'm special, but I can
hardly believe that.

> The day that fvwm requires an internal interpreted language is the day I
> stop upgrading it.

I'm sorry about that, as feel exactly the oppercite way! As another
writer in this thread said, a better configuration language for fvwm
would mean I would start using fvwm for real. Now I'm about to switch
to scwm...

/tonny

--
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].