Steve Litt <slitt@???> writes:

> On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:17:52 +0000
> Eugene Bolshakoff <mercurius@???> wrote:
>
>
>> > Fvwm's good. Resource light, very configurable. That being said, you
>> > must be *very* knowledgeable to get fvwm to work in a way that's
>> > conducive to your workstyle, especially if you have poor visual
>> > acuity like I do.
>>
>> I think this is very good to be so configurable, I like this :)
>
> Hi Eugene,
>
> I know for a fact that you're right about fvwm, because I've seen many
> people make it into exactly the interface they want, and different fvwm
> setups look *spectacularly* different from each other.

Indeed, an FVWM config is a very personal thing. I was using fvwm
exclusively for about 20 years before I recently switched to
enlightenment. What I find most amazing is that this very personal fvwm
configuration of mine was working almost unchanged for all those years
and never let me down, although a lot of config directives where marked
deprecated at some point.

I switched to enlightenment on my two major workstations when they
acquired multiple monitors. On computers where I login only
occasionally I use icewm with default config, except for sloppy mouse
focus.

> Trouble is, *I* have never been able to configure it into usefulness.

I took a long weekend to arrive at my config file, but then it lasted
for a while.

> I can't be the only one who has trouble configuring fvwm to
> productively suit my workstyle. I mean, in certain ways I'm kind of
> smart, so I'd assume other smart people are confused by fvwm.
>
> Which means maybe you and I should write an fvwm configuration
> document. We would be the ideal team, because I can't get to first base
> with fvwm (I've tried for many years), and you operate fvwm like it's a
> puppet on a string. Documenting this thing would be as simple as my
> asking you questions, you answering them, and one of us writing that
> stuff down.

--
Stephan