> > > So perhaps scwm isn't for you, but it sounds like you're happy with
> > > fvwm2 the way it is and that's fine. I'm pretty sure that the generic
> > > plans for fvwm2.3 would've left your needs behind, too, and that's fine,
> > > too. Along the lines of minimalistic wm with static configurations, the
> > > horse is dead and has been beaten for quite a while now. For those who
> > > want or need something more, perhaps scwm is the right direction.
> >
> > If you succeed in using the Fvwm name, I will be glad to provide
> > facilities and time for a fork for the people who wish to continue.
>
> We have no need to use the fvwm name; scwm is a perfectly good name. I
> only wish to merge the efforts related to dynamic configurability, and
> get more developers behind scwm. Duplicated efforts serve no one well,
> and I honestly believe scwm is far better positioned to be the future of
> fvwm2 users wanting more than fvwm2 is. Those that don't need the
> power/flexibility can stay behind as they did with fvwm1. Scwm isn't
> for everyone, but it probably is for those crying out for a better
> language with fvwm2.
I'm all for it!
/tonny
--
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 Fri Jul 17 1998 - 10:55:25 BST