On Tue, 15 May 2001, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:13:03PM -0600, Gregg Dameron wrote:
> >
> > I see fvwm as the logical choice to replace fvwm95 for our end-user
> > community (several hundred users). I am encouraged by your screenshot
> > showing a Win-95 look and feel. I am trying to make a business case to
> > my management for changing over to fvwm. Is such a change wise, or are
> > we better served by continuing to enhance and bug-fix fvwm95?
>
> As far as I know, there has been no active development on fvwm95
> for a very long time. Since fvwm95 was released initially as an
> offspring of fvwm, fvwm has acquired almost all features of
> fvwm95. If continued sowftware development and bug fixing is
> important to you, you are better off with fvwm. A WIn95 like
> configuration ported to fvwm from fvwm95 comes with the 2.3.x beta
> releases.
My RedHat box (originally 5.2, upgraded to 6.2) came with what appears to
have been FVWM95. I am guessing that when I upgraded to 6.2, it upgraded
FVWM to FVWM2 as that is what I'm now running. It saved my configuration
files, so I still have a Windows95 look and feel going on. My screenshot
might not be that professional, but you get the idea, hm?
http://www.sfgoth.com/~tenebrae/gallery/tenemiyuscreenshot.jpg
This screenshot is a little less than a year old, but I'm lazy and that's
pretty much what my desktop still looks like.
I love FVWM in all its incarnations. :)
-Tenebrae.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Tue May 15 2001 - 11:24:59 BST
