Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
X GUI Software

fvwm Turns Ten 363

Posted by michael from the bad-old-days dept.
Some Old Dude writes "fvwm, F* Virtual Window Manager, is celebrating its 10th birthday in a few days. This is the window manager I used when cutting my Linux teeth back in the last millennium, and the one I still use today (after trying many newer ones). If it's been a while since you've seen what fvwm can do, check out its features and screenshots."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

fvwm Turns Ten More

fvwm Turns Ten

Comments Filter:
  • I was surprised to find twm when I installed X11 on OS X.

    • Re:speaking of old window managers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Crispy Critters ( 226798 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @07:00PM (#6081699)
      "I was surprised to find twm when I installed X11 on OS X."

      I have, more than once, been incredibly relieved to find twm installed as a part of X on machines (not OS 10). Because when the install fails without getting all 90 billion parts of gnome or kde installed correctly, or using an old machine that can't handle the latest and greatest, I can use twm as a marginally useful window manager to start getting things done.

      And when this happens, the one of the first things I do is download and install fvwm. Woohoo!

  • Anniversary release (Score:5, Informative)

    by gleather ( 596807 ) <gleatherman@gmME ... com minus author> on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:05PM (#6081359) Journal
    They released a new version today QUOTE: http://freshmeat.net/projects/fvwm/ The changes in this release are as follows: All single letter variables are deprecated, and multiletter variables are provided. The NoWarp menu position hint option works with root menus too. WindowListFunc is executed within a window context, so a prefix "WindowId $0" is no longer needed in its definition, and it is advised to remove it from user configs. FvwmEvent executes all window related events within a window context, so PassId is not needed anymore, and all prefixes "WindowId $0" may be removed from user event handlers.

  • Choice is good... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpaceCadetTrav ( 641261 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:05PM (#6081360) Homepage
    Unless all of the choices suck.

  • Mummy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:06PM (#6081365)
    What does F* stand for?

    • Re:Mummy? (Score:2, Informative)

      by JonMartin ( 123209 )
      Fine. Flexible. Feline. Whatever the fuck (there's another one) you want. Why didn't you just check the FAQ [fvwm.org] (another one!)?

    • Re:Mummy? (Score:4, Funny)

      by David Gould ( 4938 ) <david@dgould.org> on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:12PM (#6081413) Homepage
      What does F* stand for?

      I've always heard it explained as "Feeble".

    • Re:Mummy? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:16PM (#6081437)
      [From the fvwm faq [fvwm.org]:]

      1.1 What does FVWM stand for?

      A: "Fill_in_the_blank_with_whatever_f_word_you_like_a t_the_time
      Virtual Window Manager". Rob Nation (the original Author of FVWM)
      doesn't really remember what the F stood for originally, so we
      have several potential answers:

      Feeble, Fabulous, Famous, Fast, Foobar, Fantastic, Flexible,
      F!@#$%, Flashy, FVWM (the GNU recursive approach), Free, Final,
      Funky, Fred's (who the heck is Fred?), Freakin', Flawed,
      Father-of-all, Feivel (the mouse from "An American Tail"),
      Frungy (hey, where does that come from?), Floppy, Foxy,
      Frenzied, Funny, Fumbling etc.

      Just pick your Favorite (hey, there's another one!), which will of
      course change depending on your mood and whether or not you've run
      across any bugs recently. I prefer Fabulous or Fantastic myself,
      although I often use F!@#$% or Freakin' while debugging...

      Recently 'Feline' is becoming popular. Perhaps this has something
      to do with the discovery that four of the six core developers have
      cats (averaging 1.17 cats)? Miaow.

      Know what? I found another one while stroking my cats: FEEDING :-)

      Check this link:
      fvwm-cats [fvwm.org]

    • Re:Mummy? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Newtonian_p ( 412461 )
      Its stands for Featherweight as I have indicated in my other post.

      The author forgot but some people still remember.

    • Re:Mummy? (Score:5, Funny)

      by krumms ( 613921 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:38PM (#6081575) Journal

      Mummy what does F* stand for?

      It stands for 'fuck' - what do they teach you in school these days?

  • Even THAT deserves a mention in slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:06PM (#6081373) Homepage

    Nostalgically twm would be more cool. fvwm, fvwm2, fvwm95, icewm, sawfish are the 'other' window managers. The big ones are kde and gnome and friends.

    So tonight I will celebrate by switching from icewm to fvwm for a day.

    • Re:Even THAT deserves a mention in slashdot? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Gnome (and probably KDE) isn't a window manager, it's a desktop environment. You use something like icewm, sawfish or metacity as the window manager.
    • Twm probably has some nostalgia value amongst people who rolled their own X11 back in the day, but fvwm used to be the default for most Linux systems, so it's got plenty of nostalgia value of its own. Plus, it's still going strong; twm is all-but-dead, while fvwm still has a large community of enthusiastic users and developers. Including me. I keep trying out all these newer WMs, and they always seem to be missing some essential feature that I've come to depend on over the years, and/or they're massive,

      • I keep trying out all these newer WMs, and they always seem to be missing some essential feature that I've come to depend on over the years, and/or they're massive, bloated monstrosities that don't do noticably more than my old workhorse.

        I know how you feel. I always end up going back to fvwm2 for the clean, fast operation. Customizing it is a real pain, and my config files are so old that I can't use the latest versions.

        Might I suggest trying xfce [xfce.org], which I have been using for several months with no

        • Might I suggest trying xfce

          I've tried it. Brings back nightmares of CDE. :)

          Anway, I'm happy with fvwm. I've already tweaked my configs to work with the latest releases. I do keep trying the various new WMs (since running Debian makes this very easy), and there are a lot out there that I'd recommend to people (including xfce), but there's just a lot of little details about fvwm that keep it my personal favorite.

    • My .fvwm2rc file. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Here's the one I'm using right now:
      my .fvwm2rc file [angelfire.com]
      Here is a screenshot:
      screenshot for above fvwm2rc [geocities.com]
      Here's a neat trick: Put that .png image in Opera 6.12, and press the "F11" key for fullscreen. On a 14" monitor, it will appear as if you are actually running fvwm, with this file, and you can say "Hey, I formatted your HDD, put Mandrake on it!" Only thing, none of the buttons work, so the joke comes to a quick end for the observant.
      Like most folks that post their .fvwm2rc on the internet, I have to say

    • Others (Score:3, Informative)

      by DragonHawk ( 21256 )
      "Nostalgically twm would be more cool. fvwm, fvwm2, fvwm95, icewm, sawfish are the 'other' window managers."

      Actually, I think twm would be an 'other' as well. I believe the original window manager was xwm.

      http://www.plig.org/xwinman/others.html [plig.org]

  • Oh man (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:07PM (#6081376)
    I forgot to buy it a gift. I'm so screwed.

  • Cool screenshots... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stalemate ( 105992 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:08PM (#6081381)
    and a catchy name too. It really rolls right off of your tongue about like a sawblade. ;)

  • tried and true (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SonicTooth ( 561342 ) <willis@ir m a k.org> on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:13PM (#6081419) Homepage
    fvwm and tvwm are two great window managers espiecally when you're cutting edge gnome/kde/fluxbox/etc... refuses to work, and you just have to get something done graphicly. I know i've fallen back on them more then once. That coupled with the fact that they're so damn small, keeps them on my my small hard drive.
    • And both were so damned simple to use and to customize your menus. Looking at the screenshots of the new release makes me wonder if they're chasing KDE/GNOME for complexity.

  • Happy Birthday! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MacOS_Rules ( 170853 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:14PM (#6081425) Homepage
    F* yes! Happy F*'ing birthday! (The BSD devel made me do it).

    Really, thanks and congrats to the developers of this great WM: this was my first Linux non-CLI, and it remains my favorite.

  • fvwm allowed me to make my perfect linux desktop (Score:5, Interesting)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:16PM (#6081436) Homepage
    After trying out kde, gnome and xfce, I went back to fvwm and couldn't be happer with my current setup. The only thing on my desktop when I login is a single xterm. I can launch anything I need from there, but I also spent some time to customize my root menu (right-click on desktop) to give me quick access to the apps and scripts I use the most (including xterm -- I forgot to put that in their the first time around... didn't notice it until I accidently closed my one and only xterm -- oops!)
  • REAL men use the console. For those forced to use those silly window gadgets by their PHBs, there's NAWM: Not a Window Manager. Non-reparenting, non-eye candy, pure window management functionality and nothing more. Check it out. [mit.edu]

  • birthdays (Score:5, Funny)

    by bongobongo ( 608275 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:17PM (#6081442)
    my hypercard stack "Escape From The Dark Cassel [sic]" turned 12 today... can we celebrate that too?

    • Re: birthdays (Score:5, Funny)

      by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:43PM (#6081602)
      Yeaah. How old is Hypercard itself anyway? That's the birthday I'm getting a gift for. I remember my first Hypercard stack. Drawing of a naked woman; when you clicked her nipple it made noises and played screen effects. Immature and simple, yes, but it still beats the hell out of fvwm.

      • HyperCard Smut Stack (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SimHacker ( 180785 )
        I accidentally met the author of the HyperCard Smut Stack, several years ago at a dot-com trade show. I was ranting and raving with a group of people about pioneering forms of interactive multimedia, and of course I described the HyperCard Smut Stack with the nipples that go "ping" when you click on them.

        Then this guy I didn't know said "I wrote that". I stopped dead in my tracks, my jaw dropped on the floor, I rewound my mental tape of what I had been saying, played it back to myself, and asked incredulo

  • Happy Freakin' Birthday? (Score:5, Funny)

    by suwain_2 ( 260792 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:32PM (#6081542) Journal
    This is like a "Happy friggin' birthday" greeting. "It's your birthday, here's the Slashdot effect for your birthday." And they can't effectively return the gift if they don't like it.

  • Featherweight (Score:5, Informative)

    by Newtonian_p ( 412461 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:32PM (#6081543) Homepage
    The 'F' stands for Featherweight. It was called that way because it was originally less ressource intensive than twm (tabbed window manager) on which it is based.

    The author might have forgot what his acronym stands for but some people remember the original announcement.

    • Re:Featherweight (Score:3, Informative)

      by IO ERROR ( 128968 )
      From the old (version 1) man page of fvwm:

      The name "FVWM" used to stand for something, but I forgot what. (Feeble, famous, foobar? It doesn't really matter, this is an acronym based society
      anyway.)

      I certainly don't remember featherweight, and I can't find the original announcement. The earliest Usenet posting [google.com] (Jun 1 1993) I could find refers to it as feeble. But it doesn't really matter, since I haven't used fvwm in years, and really don't have any plans to go back. After all, I have 256MB of RAM.

    • Re:Featherweight (Score:5, Funny)

      by cbiffle ( 211614 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:53AM (#6083031)
      Yup, just as many of us have not forgotten that the K in KDE is for Kool, or was originally. I wonder why they didn't call it CDE...erm, wait....

      But, though KDE is still quite kool if your spelling is atrocious, FVWM need not necessarily be Featherweight in name or functionality. Acronyms can change. Take good ol' Personal Home Page.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:44PM (#6081604)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • RedHat is lame (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mallan ( 37663 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:45PM (#6081613) Homepage
    (rant)

    Why on earth did RedHat take FVWM out of its distrubution? Like many long time Linux users, FVWM has been my window manager for years. It's small, fast, flexible, and infinitely configurable - with three CDs of space for RedHat 9, you'd think they'd be able to find a couple of megs for FVWM. Even their "switchdesk" utility still wants FVWM as an option.

    Taking FVWM out of the standard distribution is just plain dumb, not to mention insulting to many Linux users. How many years was FVWM the default window manager for RedHat? I've been using FVWM for years on RedHat, but now I have to change to a more "modern" window manager because they can't spare 3 megs on their distribution CDs? Grrr.

    (/rant)

    • Re:RedHat is lame (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They have this thing now called the "internet" where you can get programs that don't come on the distribution CDs.

    • Re:RedHat is lame (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lactose99 ( 71132 )
      Just use Slackware...

      Default install of 9.0 contains fvwm-2.4.15-i386-2.

  • well, there are probably better choices now (Score:5, Informative)

    by 73939133 ( 676561 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:45PM (#6081616)
    Fvwm was nice back then. But even if you want a small, light-weight window manager, there are probably better choices than fvwm these days: Oroborus, Blackbox, IceWM, Ion, to name just a few. Their code tends to be cleaner and their configuration and code tends to be more modular.
    • Perhaps you missed the part where it said that fvwm is still being actively developed? It's getting steadily better and better, IMO. Not to say that some of those other choices aren't perfectly nice too, but fvwm is a lot nicer than it was "back then", and it's still, pound-for-pound, one of the best tradeoffs for size vs. power, IMO.

      As for those others being more modular, say what? Fvwm is modular almost to the point of insanity. That's what helps keep it so lightweight. Only the modules you actually
  • I got my .fvwm2rc from the guy who introduced me to SuSE 4.x
    To this day, I can't part with that file - don't even know if it still works in the latest version. I haven't used fvwm in 2 years, but I know that file is in my $HOME on every linux box I work on... just in case.

    nostalgia...

  • y'all rmrmeber that? It actually didi a very good job of imitiating windows. It came as the default wm on RH 5.2 back in the day. UI was like LLinux has a start button. wow. And netscape. it's jsut like windows, except different. I rebooted into win95 to play a game later and didn't use linux for another year or so, but it was fy forst view of linux.
  • I wonder what the world will be like when Gnome or KDE turn ten! Right now it's impossible to predict what things will be like in one year, let alone ten!

    640 Gb is enough for anyone, eh? :)
  • But after every WM I've used, I'll still always go back to Fluxbox... I'm using the developer release, and while it can crash from time to time, it's proving to be shaping up extremely nicely.

  • Why FVWM matters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crucini ( 98210 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @07:12PM (#6081767)
    A lot of folks seem to think that Windows represents the pinnacle of GUI aesthetics, and that everything else (except Apple) should try to copy it. These folks look down on fvwm as "not even as good as Windows 3.1".

    I don't agree. I like the Unix desktop at its most Unixy - clean, efficient andminimal. No need to waste pixels catering for an idiot when this desktop is the interface for a computer professional. But if I wanted to waste some pixels, and I have in the past, I'd waste them on stuff that looks cool to my aesthetic, not what looks reassuring to some marketer trying to soothe the average user.

    If you want to understand the "real" window managers, like fvwm, Afterstep, etc., realize three things:
    1. They aren't trying to be "as good as Windows 3.1". They're in a totally different space. Just because they run on PC hardware now doesn't mean they partake of the PC mentality. These WM's can be configured from minimal to maximal, but at maximal they express a strong aesthetic that's quite different from consumer OS's.
    2. Forget about "user friendliness". Real WM's are delicately balanced between aesthetics and efficiency, leaving little room for user-friendliness, which means accomodation to beginners. Let beginners use Gnome/KDE if they're unwilling to learn, or learn the real stuff if they're willing. More importantly, real user friendliness requires the WM to know things about applications, the machine, etc. I prefer my WM ignorant and agnostic - a mere conduit for my actions.
    3. Don't judge them by how they "look". They don't look like anything - they're quite user-tunable, which is half the fun. The screenshots [fvwm.org] only give hints of the scope of customization. The feeling of running a desktop that you built is completely different from the feeling you get looking at someone else's desktop.

    I don't like CDE very much, but CDE is clean and technical-looking in a way that Windows isn't. Almost everyone would happily go from CDE to KDE or Gnome, but I'd feel some loss of Unix flavor.

    (I've ignored the fact that fvwm works with Gnome - you could have the fvwm coolness and the Gnome user-friendliness, I guess.)

    I'm currently running fluxbox at work and AfterStep at home. I like a lot of what I see in the fvwm release - it seems the good window managers are converging and adopting the best features.

    I know there will always be a small group that thinks as I do, but I'm afraid we're not communicating very well. Tons of newcomers are pouring into Linux, and most of them have only seen Microsoft Windows. Therefore they're inclined to view the desktop through a Microsoft lens, even as they criticize Microsoft.

    I don't like Microsoft software. I find it disgusting from concept to execution, from GUI aesthetics to file formats. I don't want anything on my machines to look like that.
    • I think that ratpoison [sourceforge.net] represents the pinnacle of GUI aesthetics. Less G and more UI, please.

    • Re:Why FVWM matters (Score:4, Insightful)

      by entrigant ( 233266 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @10:53PM (#6082651)
      Either you are a really good troll or you truely believe what you just said. Perhaps you don't realize the elitism and self induced masochism behind your words.. perhaps you do. Either way, I feel compelled to make a counter, and I intend it to be as vague and pointless as your perspective.

      A lot of folks seem to think that Windows represents the pinnacle of GUI aesthetics, and that everything else (except Apple) should try to copy it. These folks look down on fvwm as "not even as good as Windows 3.1".

      First, I do not see how believing fvwm lags behind Windows 3.1 in technology as saying the same thing as Windows is the pinnacle of GUI aesthetics. Please do not put words into peoples mouths to suit your needs. Most people mean exactly what they say. When I say product A is not as good as product B I do not hide any subtext claiming product B is the best. Just that it's better. (For the record, I do NOT think windows 3.1 is better than fvwm, not by a long shot.)

      I don't agree. I like the Unix desktop at its most Unixy - clean, efficient andminimal. No need to waste pixels catering for an idiot when this desktop is the interface for a computer professional. But if I wanted to waste some pixels, and I have in the past, I'd waste them on stuff that looks cool to my aesthetic, not what looks reassuring to some marketer trying to soothe the average user.

      This may be a given, but minimal does not imply efficien tor clean, efficient does not imply minimal or clean, and clean does not imply efficient or minimal. These are all seperate and non-related attributes. As a computer professional who stares at a monitor all damn day, I prefer to look at something pretty. Also, because my desktop is pretty does not mean I am a "clueless idiot newb" nor does it imply I do not know what I am doing. MY desktop is also pretty according to my tastes, and not the tastes of a marketing rep. See, most of us don't configure our computers to be what other people think they should be, and the fact that you would presume we do is flat out insulting.

      They aren't trying to be "as good as Windows 3.1". They're in a totally different space. Just because they run on PC hardware now doesn't mean they partake of the PC mentality. These WM's can be configured from minimal to maximal, but at maximal they express a strong aesthetic that's quite different from consumer OS's.

      As ambiguous as this is I will attempt to make sense of this. I do not know exactly what you mean by "PC Mentality" as I do not see how the goals of PC users are any different from any computer user. Most of us just want to use our PC's to do what we do, and to be able to do that in a manner that we enjoy. MOST of us don't think we should make our computing experience feel like hard work. This is, however, not the typical attitude of the elitist.

      I am, as you may have guessed, a KDE user. Seeing as the whole of KDE is an environment and not a simple window manager most comparisons are immediately invalid or rediculous. I will try to make one though. I can configure KDE to present me with nothing but a background color and a mouse cursor. I can have it present a simple hard to read application menu when I click on this solid colored desktop. I can even have the window frame only be 1 pixel largeon the sides and bottom and 5 pixels large on the top. I can configure it to switch desktops with the mouse wheel or simply by moving the cursor to the edge of the screen and "push" into the next one. I can make it act like any minimal window manager you use, or I could have icons littering my desktop, a full size kicker bar, huge animated mouse cursors, and a liud and obnoxious sound for every little action that can be performed. So.. does that make my wm configurable enough for your stringent standards?

      Forget about "user friendliness". Real WM's are delicately balanced between aesthetics and efficiency, leaving little room for user-friendliness, which means accomodation to beginners.

  • Top 5 Reason to run FVWM (Score:4, Funny)

    by sflory ( 2747 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @07:15PM (#6081782)
    1)It was good enough 8 years ago.

    2)I've got nothing better to do than fuck with my .fwm*rc file

    3)My desktop doesn't look enought like ass yet.

    4)I've only got 12M of memory.

    5)What the hell X only holds up my xterms, and mozilla.

  • Personally... (Score:3, Informative)

    by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot.org@gmail.3.14com minus pi> on Friday May 30, 2003 @07:28PM (#6081838) Homepage Journal
    I find VTWM [visi.com] suits my needs better.

    If you're going to go lean and mean, why not go all the way? ;-)

  • These days I have a salary and can afford to have nice pretty computers:

    In my primary work area I have a powerbook (With OSX) and a Gentoo Linux [gentoo.org] PC (Strictly KDE not Gnome). Looking at those screenshots reminds me how much the Linux community has advanced since those 'hobbyist' days. I think we owe it to ourselves to have desktops that are both functional AND pretty.

    Anyway Gentoo Linux includes FVWM even though that distro is less than 2 years old!

    Fvwm is what Microsoft THINK all UNIX(y) computers sti

  • Why fvwm? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrQu+xum ( 218745 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @08:56PM (#6082222) Homepage Journal
    Because Gnome isn't too swift with Cygwin/X11 on a Celeron 400 running 98SE* (hell, it doesn't even run!) Fvwm, keep on crankin'!

    *-Mum's computer. Mine runs OpenBSD ... and fvwm.

  • Laern the hard way (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @10:03PM (#6082451)
    My CS department [ualberta.ca] has an old (at least I hope so) version of fvwm as the default WM with a particularily horrid colour scheme. I've heard the reason is to force the students to delve into the config files so avoid going insane.

  • FVWM: The window manager I keep returning to (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChaosDiscord ( 4913 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @10:06PM (#6082464) Homepage Journal

    My first experience with Unix-esque systems and X-Windows was in 1993 when I started college. At the time my choice was TWM [plig.org] or FVWM. FVWM was clearly the more advanced option and one of the more advanced window managers at the time. (CDE looked advanced, but was more of a hassle than it was worth.)

    Since then I've tended to be lazy and taken what I was given, stuck with whatever was the default. As a result I spend a long time with Enlightenment followed by SawFish/SawMill. I've dabbled with a number of other window managers.

    Then last year (2002), I took a job back at my old university. The default was still FVWM! And while FVWM had matured, it remained instantly identifable. I hadn't used it in five years, but it came back instantly. It felt right. Sure, it lacks classy menus, but the configuration file was easy enough to use and let me set things up how I wanted. Most window managers are determined to stick the various window management buttons where they want them. FVWM makes it easy to stick them where I want them. It's a minimal WM, I don't run any of the modules except for the pager (to switch between virtual desktops) and the IconMan, a very minimal list of windows on each desktop. My desktop is spartan and I've discovered that I really like it.

  • fvwm2 is the best (Score:3, Interesting)

    by meshko ( 413657 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @10:33PM (#6082577) Homepage
    I think fvwm2 is the best window manager and I'm really happy to see this thread.
    I think that window manager/desktop must have the following features:
    * ability to start xterm instantaneously
    * pager which shows windows and their titles
    * flexible configuration in an editable file ... I think that's it.
    Now I know that there are some newer wms which can do that as well, but I think fvwm was the first one which offered this and I see no reason to switch.

  • Call me crazy, but I still like fvwm. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Friday May 30, 2003 @10:44PM (#6082619) Journal
    For a reason that probably nobody else agrees with, but I like it anyways.

    The virtual desktop can be panned across, and you can set the physical desktop *anywhere* within the virtual desktop space, so the physical desktop isn't just constrained to be on coordinates in the virtual desktop that are integer multiples of the physical desktop size. AFAIK, none of the other more recent window managers have ever incorporated this idea, but it's far and away the feature I liked the most about it.

  • FVWM saved me from CDE (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @03:42AM (#6083430)
    For the first year of my PhD I was stuck with a sparcstation 5 on my desk (32Meg ram, processor like a fast 486). It ran CDE and it was just too painful for words.

    Installing FVWM gave me a faster, more usable desktop that kept me from going insane until we got the budget to buy a new computer (which unfortunately runs win2K, but I guess you can't have everything)

Slashdot Top Deals

Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.

Close