[TAG] One for Ben

[Thomas Adam]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:31:44 -0400
Ben Okopnik <ben at callahans.org> wrote:

> the interface("Fear not, small human creature; KDE has decided on
> everything you'll want and need, and will provide it for you.") I

It does have "wizards" or the equivalent so that even the complete
clueless can give it a go.

> dislike the standard RedHat install for the same reasons (it's a minor
> dislike, but that's the reason for it.)

*sigh*. I agree. I liked it more when RH4 and the subsequent RH5 release
used Fvwm. They now use Gnome, which is arguably better IMO, than KDE.
Qt is horrible.

> IceWM is small, fast, and lacks nothing in features that I want from a
> WM. From Thomas' previous rantings :), I gather that FVWM is much the
> same sort of thing. It's like having a spoon that you bought for a

Kind of. But there are a _lot_ of things Fvwm does that IceWM does not,
and while I am not going to outline the individual merits of each, you
cannot, for instance, in IceWM do event actions. And while I have used
IceWm, it just doesn't have..., well, it lacks *something*. :)

Apart from the inherent motif theme [1] that Fvwm takes on by default (
\o/ ), perhaps the other major attraction to it for me was the fact that
you can define events based on actions. AFAICT this is an idiom unique
to Fvwm, and no other WM/desktop environment (The module that provides
this is known as 'FvwmEvent').

Perhaps another addition that you might appreciate Ben is the fact that
you can script commands to Fvwm, using the underlying $SHELL. There is
even a full set of perl-bindings[2] [3]. The power that this gives, to
allow complex things to be done simply, is quite amazing. Not only that
but Fvwm has its own internal widget set (FvwmScript) so that you can
define all kinds of things.

For example, I have a function in Fvwm that displays the total number of
windows that I have open, on the title for my pager. By "open", I mean
those windows that are not iconified. You can see it here [4]. You
probably couldn't do that easily in anyother WM. Whether or not you
would _want_ to, is another question entirely. :)

/me comes down from his high horse.

But it really does just depend. I ask of nothing visual from my WM in
terms of eye candy. Ick. The only thing I permit myself is xteddy. After
all, a WM is just there to provide a means of being able to launch lots
of rxvts. :)

> quarter; no matter *how* you improve the thing, it's _still_ going to
> be a spoon, and the functionality of it will never be worth much more
> than that price. Yeah, you could theoretically make it out of gold and

That's where I diagree. The environment you work in is what you make it.
And since Fvwm is free, the amount of things I can do with it, and the
extendability of it is immense. I joke not. There are over 1000 styles
in all to Fvwm. You can configure the minutest.

> attach it to a gadget that will feed the baby, wipe up the spills, and
> go to the store to buy the products to replace the ones it used up...
> but it's neither a spoon any longer, nor is it nearly as useful as a
> spoon is if you move away from the home/baby/store metaphor.

Given that all of this is contained within Fvwm, the need to *add on*
any features are irrelevant. It's ironic to think that despite all I
have said, given my needs, I could quite easily go back to using TWM
again.... [5]

-- Thomas Adam

[1] No, despite what you might have read. Motif is *not* dying. It's
very much alive, and I for one am greatful that it is.

[2] http://fvwm.org/documentation/manpages/unstable/FvwmPerl.php

[3] Rumours that I'm working on FvwmRuby, are very true indeed.

[4] http://linuxmafia.com/~n6tadam/benexample.png

[5] Do not take this e-mail out of context. I'm not trying to sell you
Fvwm, nor force it upon you. I'm just trying to outline just how
powerful it is, if you care to dig deep enough. :)

--
"Programming in Ruby is like being hugged." -- Greg McIntyre, Ruby
programmer.