On 2004-12-21 at 09:40-08 Globe Trotter <itsme_410@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I use fvwm: very configurable, and lightweight, IMO.... On 2004-12-22 at 17:28+01 Chris Rouch <crouch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] you might want to look at fvwm (fvwm.org). They supply rpms > which work on FC3 and it does all you ask for above. Noted; thanks for the suggestions. On 2004-12-22 at 01:07-05 Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Everyone has favorite features, and it's not helpful to say "this is > totally broken!" (or "unusable") just because it doesn't match > _your_ checklist. In most cases, I would be arguing the same position. Everyone has a favorite pet feature whose absence will make them unhappy. But I'm sorry, I have to draw the line at being able to bind events to key and mouse button combinations. This is not a feature; it's a fundamental capability. Way back when I first started using X11 (before Linux existed, let alone GNOME) I realized that most of the raise/lower operations I executed came right after I moved the pointer and thus still had my hand on the mouse. Binding Alt+MouseButton1 to "window raise" and Alt+MouseButton3 to "window lower" was thus incredibly convenient, and many of the people who copied my .twmrc agreed with me. Plain old twm (which was pretty much the only window manager back then) was able to bind events to keyboard/button combinations, and it still can. It's not a complicated, code-bloating capability, like transparency or edge resistance. It's not a preference (Havoc's pet UI peeve is "too many preferences). It's not crackrock. It's not Marshmallow Froot Loops. (Again, Havoc's words, from the metacity README.) It doesn't get in the way. No, the only reason why metacity can't bind events to keyboard/button combinations is because *Havoc thinks I shouldn't be doing that*. If I wanted my effing computer to tell me what I should and should not be doing, I'd run Windows. The UI exists to service *me*. I do not exist to find circuitous ways around arbitrary restrictions in the UI placed there by people solely because they don't want me to use the UI in the manner which is the most convenient for me. > Clearly metacity meets some people's checklists (Havoc's, at > least!), and I'm sure you're well aware of it. And the Windows UI meets many more people's checklists. Does that make it acceptable? Or better? Should we choose to emulate its restrictions just because so many people are already familiar with them? > Window Maker should fit the bill pretty well, although the version > in Fedora Extras last I looked (before the new "Pre-Extras" thing) > wasn't up to date and wasn't quite modern-gnome-aware. Thanks, I'll add it to my list of window managers to look at. -- James Ralston, Information Technology Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
