Re: FVWM: two questions about icons

In message <[email protected]>, 
Thomas Adam <[email protected]> wrote:

>> For me, 3c was in fact just a blank space.  I just now figured out why.  On
>> FreeBSD, the xload command is in a separate package, all on its own, and that
>> package is *not* currently listed as dependency of the fvwm package.  (I will
>> be speakingt o the maintainer about this.)  As a result, my system was running
>
>No sane maintainer is going to make xload a dependency of FVWM.  The point of
>the default config here isn't to do that, but to provide some sane defaults
>where possible.

The default configuration assumes the presence of xload.

I will let the FreeBSD port maintainer decide if that means that xload should
be listed as a prerequsite for fvwm.  I have an opinion on this, and you have
one, and he may have a third.

>> In any case, I would like to suggest to the fvwm maintainers that they do as
>> I have done and substitute out the xload invocation in the default theme and
>> replace it, as I have done, with a digital xclock display of the current date.
>
>No.  I think what you've done is to prove the point -- that being that you're
>expected to use this config as a starting to point to make your own
>modifications, which you're doing.

As much as I admire all of the ornate and impressive complexity of fvwm, I
never actually -wanted- to do any of this.  It has taken me a lot of hours,
and none of what I have learned is applicable or useful to anything else
that I am doing, or that I am at all likely to do in the future.

No offense intended, but if there had been some other window manager that
would give me multiple virutal desktops... a feature that I can no longer
live without... and which didn't require a massive amount of unlearning
and then re-learning (i.e. of basic usage conventions) then I would have
used that instead.

I am not seeking to become an X wizard or a window manager wizard or anything
else.  I just know enough to barely get by and that's all I have time for
right now.  I have promises to keep, and many spammers to kill.

>> I would really appreciate it if the maintainers would fix this self-evident
>> bug.  It is most annoying.  The minimization/iconization process should not
>> be hiding minimized window icons underneath the boxes created by the default
>> theme.  That's just wrong, and one would hope that there might be some simple
>> way to get the window minimization/iconization process to avoid doing this
>> annoying and clearly wrong thing.
>
>This isn't a bug.

I gather that you would prefer not to elaborate further on that assertion,
but I will ask you to do so anyway.

How exactly is hiding icons underneath something else... where they can't
even be clicked on... a Good Thing?  I mean, you know, for a perfectly
ordinary end-luser.


Regards,
rfg