> This sounds neat! If one is willing to give up so much processing
> power to make their display look nice-nice. I do like my workstation
> to look attractive but what is the performance hit one might have
> to endure for such a display?
Big. Unless you have additional postscript hardware.
> Sounds good. :) And this brings up my question from a week or so
> ago about fvwm2's ability to make my windows look like what I had
> when running AfterStep:
Add too many styles, and Fvwm gets too big/buggy/slow/unusable. If we
want to add arbitrary window decorations, either adopt the scheme of E,
and use pixmaps w/Shapes for everything, or spend a good long time
thinking about how to structure it so that it is fast/flexible and not too
user-terrifying.
> I don't know .. if enough people/users think this is a good idea I
> think it might be worth starting implementation. Targeting for
> Fvwm 2.2 or something like that. Or am I too ambitious? *:-}
Come up with a spec. List all the things that Fvwm should do in the
window decoration area. Then, we have to figure out how to code it. The,
we will basically have to overhaul all the code. (which was done for
textured borders, so it is not impossible....)
Start the ball rolling, and see how far it gets. The problem with
something like this is that if you add support for one new style, that is
all well and good, but helps you not at all to add another. Adding the
framework neccesary is a big job, with little immediate payoff. There is
no way to do this in steps. Tear it down, build it up. Ick.
I am willing to help, but I have a job, and they actually expect me to
work, so....
ericb
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Mon Aug 25 1997 - 10:28:06 BST