[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: fvwm95 gratuitously reconfigures system

Kenneth MacDonald writes:
>Thanks for your input on this topic.  I, personally think that fvwm95
>should make itself the default window manager, since anyone (in my
>expierence) who wants another window manager is already an experienced
>unix user, and is happy to edit the /etc/X11/window-managers file.

You've completely missed the point.

fvwm95 will make itself the default window manager *even when the
system adminstrator has already set a default window manager*.

It is this that I suggest is wrong.  It's nothing to do with the
backdoor attempt to make fvwm95 the default window manager everywhere.

>I'm not directly advocating making fvwm95 the 'official Debian window
>manager', but seeing an opportunity to reduce the number of questions
>at install time, at relatively little cost.  Anyway, read on, since
>I'm not following my personal opinion on this matter :)

Your policy will do more than make fvwm96 the "official Debian window
manager", it will also retroactively reconfigure computers owned by
people who have made other choices.

>>>>>> "RK" == Richard Kettlewell <richard@greenend.org.uk> writes:
>    RK> Kenneth MacDonald writes:
>    >> You complained that fvwm95 makes itself the default window
>    >> manager for the system upon installation (by making itself
>    >> first in /etc/X11/window-managers)
>    >> 
>    >> I propose the following behaviour...
>    >> 
>    >> First install: fvwm95 becomes default window manager
>    RK> That still overrides a system adminstrator's previous
>    RK> decisions about what to make the default window manager.  This
>    RK> behaviour assumes that the fvwm95 package maintainer knows
>    RK> better than I how I should run my system, clearly not the case
>    RK> - it's my computer!
>Are you advocating a question in the postinst, or just tagging on the
>end of the list of installed window managers?  I will add a question,
>since the documentation for the xbase package states...

I don't really care how it's done, as long as it doesn't silently
override my own decisions.  Why not just append it to the end of the

Richard Kettlewell               http://www.elmail.co.uk/~richard/

Reply to: