fvwmuser

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by fvwmuser 10mo ago

   fvwm95 was a fork of fvwm2 and has remained in that state, and never updated. It was created at a time when the theming in fvwm was not as flexible, but it's completely possible to emulate all of fvwm95 in fvwm3, and behind the scenes,
2. 2.▲
   by fvwmuser 1y ago

   It's not the "difficulty" it's the fact that the technologies are completely different. See: https://gist.github.com/ThomasAdam/5377540b3025f7f04735d96ee...
3. 3.▲
   by fvwmuser 1y ago

   True -- but then, FvwmButtons was never meant to compete with systray stuff, the original spec came via EWMH for that. and didn't really affect FvwmButtons' raison d'être.
4. 4.▲
   by fvwmuser 1y ago

   I wouldn't have said this is anything new. FreeBSD has libxo[0] integrated into some of its tools: [0] https://github.com/Juniper/libxo
5. 5.▲
   by fvwmuser 5y ago

   There's still time for you to learn...
6. 6.▲
   by fvwmuser 5y ago

   Yes -- same with CPP as well. Fvwm2 allowed you to use the language features of M4/CPP to hold variables and to perform loops on different data, so you could generate complex config files that way, without needing to build that into t
7. 7.▲
   by fvwmuser 6y ago

   There's nothing stopping you using FVWM or XFCE on newer hardware either.
8. 8.▲
   by fvwmuser 6y ago

   You'd be surprised at just how popular this is still. I think people appreciate the flexibility, even if that means things being on their terms. Plenty of applications still operate with text files (just look at emacs/vim) and th