Fvwm2. Was: Debian Gnome Or XFCE ?
Hi,
Nicolas George wrote:
> [fvwm2] it seems ill-loved by Debian maintainers:
I was prepared to give it up. Especially after knowing
the configuration it had on Debian 6. Since i use that
machine mainly via SSH i never bothered to try my
workstation configuration file.
The nearly zero functional configuration of Debian 8.1
forced me to give it a try. It was a nice start for the
quite cumbersome endeavor to catch up with 8 years of Linux
evolution.
> It is sad, even: just shipping a 200-lines example config with a few visual
> enhancements over the default config is enough to make it look good. Without
> that, unknowing users are scared away before realizing they do not really
> need these huge desktop environments.
I assume it is least cumbersome for the Debian maintainer
to ship only a minimal configuration and to leave it to
the old fart user to get it to run "As It Always Was" (TM).
Google "fvwm2rc" finds the configuration of Eric S. Raymond,
color marked examples, starter examples, ...
After installation of fvwm2 there are man pages for the
fvwm2 commands. E.g. man FvwmButtons. So one can look up
the commands used in the configurations and try them
interactively with FvwmConsole.
We should make clear that fvwm2 is in use.
Wasn't there a popularity list of packages ? How to vote ?
(How to keep out of vote all the packages which i never
use but got installed anyway ?)
> I wonder if the maintainers would be amenable to proposed default config
> files enhancements.
A single person is listed in
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/fvwm
That gives hope. (My stuff is nominally maintained by an inactive
team and two friends of mine who got a real life meanwhile.)
I'm all in for positive feedback.
Before we propose enhancements, we should probably ask about
the reason for the sparse default configuration.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
Reply to: