ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

Snowman · 2005-07-28 15:55:46

fullmetaljack wrote:

Is there a good base theme for fvwm that I could start out with (that looks decent) and tweak from there?

You can check out:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?d … s=1&ID=120

Or you can do what I did. In a default fvwm session, click one of the mouse button (can't remember which one) there will be a menu with an option to create a theme. It will created an acceptable theme, IMO, that can be used as a base.

NB. I've tried fvwm-crystal and didn't like it. I prefer my home-made theme even though it's still needs some tweeking.

rasat · 2005-08-03 06:39:55

jackmetal wrote:

Do they make it ugly as heck initially to scare people off?

Demo view:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?p=105423#105423

The root is ready, and user mode and package installer is on the way. The tools are made in xdialog (bash in X).
http://xdialog.dyns.net/

Wiki
http://user-contributions.org/wikis/not … ArchWMbase

iphitus · 2005-08-03 08:57:51

Impressive work rasat!

What did you write the config tools in?

That inspires me to write a pygtk one.. sometime

iphitus

cmp · 2005-08-03 09:11:32

@rasat I guess the default theme is only for testing at this point, but I would use a theme which is a little bit simpler/cleaner.
nice work, keep it up.

archdaemon · 2005-08-03 09:19:27

iphitus wrote:

Impressive work rasat!
What did you write the config tools in?
That inspires me to write a pygtk one.. sometime
iphitus

rasat wrote:

The tools are made in xdialog (bash in X).
http://xdialog.dyns.net/

Xdialog is a GTK (not GTK2) widget with shell scripts as the backend. I use it if I can't figure out a way to make gxmessage (GTK2) do what I need - gxmessage is basically just a text field/button box. But it looks nicer and I find its syntax to be more sensible.

Fvwm has its builtin GUI frontend tools - the FvwmGtk module and something else - but I never got into it because I liked that sort of thing being GUI-agnostic. However, in this case, it might be the way to go, since it *is* fvwm specific. Then again again, that would mean including that module by default. Either way, it's an extra dep for those who don't already have Xdialog.

T-Dawg · 2005-08-03 09:22:18

Wow you busy little penguin! Everytime I turn around your working on something for us, it looks great!

iphitus wrote:

What did you write the config tools in?

I'm going to guess bash

archdaemon · 2005-08-03 09:24:51

cmp wrote:

@rasat I guess the default theme is only for testing at this point, but I would use a theme which is a little bit simpler/cleaner.
nice work, keep it up.

Missed this.

I've got a clean simple theme. :twisted: I don't think many people like it, though. It's in the August screenshot thread.

rasat · 2005-08-03 11:01:03

Anyone interested to help developing an "archwman" similar to pacman but gui and features of pacmenu. First I thought using pacman but /var/lib/pacman/local will be filled with small size pkgs not directly related to Arch.

I love Bash and start liking the FVWM's config language easy to read/write and mixes well with shell scripts. But want to use another language for complex tool developments. Please, also no Python (11MB package too large to download). A language usually installed by the users. It must be a gui.

1. Check what user contributed packages are available in repo and locally installed, in four categories:
- layout
- function
- module
- system

2. Install and unistall with selected tag marks.

iphitus · 2005-08-03 11:52:28

rasat wrote:

Please, also no Python (11MB package too large to download).

Python is in the base install and comes on the install CD.....so it's not like its an extra dependency that nobody has. 99% of users have it. and it's 9.9mb not 11 Pygtk is an extra 1.1mb.

You could always use ruby + gtk, but ruby's gtk bindings arent in the official arch repos, ruby is 2.4mb.

Or perl, which is also included by standard, perlgtk is another 2.1mb.

That's most of the easy scripting languages... if you dont want any of them, there's always C.

IMHO, you're best off with Python

iphitus

ps: I'm a python user.... so I'm biased

rasat · 2005-08-03 12:14:27

I am having Python only because ArchStats begin with it. Before I didn't even know what it is. One of the main reason why ArchStats changed to C, because of the package size.

Here we are speaking about maybe 400KB program, why asking to install 10MB? ArchWM is not for me, but trying to make something for the public (Arch). Same ArchStats was a public program and had to adjust accordingly.

iphitus · 2005-08-03 12:23:02

rasat wrote:

I am having Python only because ArchStats begin with it. Before I didn't even know what it is. One of the main reason why ArchStats changed to C, because of the package size.
Here we a speaking about maybe 400KB program, why asking to install 10MB? ArchWM is not for me, but trying to make something for the public (Arch). Same ArchStats was a public program and had to adjust accordingly.

why install it?

Because it's already installed on 99% of Arch installations? There is no extra 10mb installation for it when it's already installed.

iphitus

rasat · 2005-08-03 12:45:44

ArchStats shows about 85%.

Snowman · 2005-08-03 17:32:16

Looks promising

phrakture · 2005-08-03 18:08:24

rasat wrote:

Here we are speaking about maybe 400KB program, why asking to install 10MB? ArchWM is not for me, but trying to make something for the public (Arch). Same ArchStats was a public program and had to adjust accordingly.

Well then, how big are the perl, ruby, and other interpreters? Any language like this is going to have some size overhead.

edit:

perl      12111K
python    10159K
php        5256K
ruby       2470K
bash        388K
lua         248K

these are the sizes of the arch packages - if you're going based on size only (which seems to be your main criteria, because you rejected python based on nothing more than package size) then lua would be your best bet...

iphitus · 2005-08-03 22:36:03

rasat wrote:

ArchStats shows about 85%.

Dont forget that ArchStat's results are averaged out over time. So 85% of the systems, since it started had it. If you ran archstats on all the current systems, you'd find it's on most as kde and gnome both now depend on it.

iphitus

archdaemon · 2005-08-04 04:41:13

I'd be surprised if more than 85% of current Archers were running Knome. So I'm not sure it'd have all that profound effect, regardless.

As much as I hate to say it, if anything fvwm-related were written in a language besides shell, the language would most sensibly be perl since fvwm is perl-centric.

Which is yet another good reason for doing it in shell.

Anyway - this shouldn't be about language wars. This is just about the window manager. The entry level should be as minimal as possible because that's the spirit of the thing - get the fundamental basics and add what you want to make it your own. So what's required to get the thing off the ground should obviously be shell and what you *can* add should obviously be python *and/or* perl *and/or* ruby *and/or* whatever anyone could possibly want.

-- Edit - wait a minute. Minimalist is to do it from scratch. Why not have an archwm base that has no capability to add modules or do themes beyond builtins. And then the user can choose to add 'archwm-config-sh' or 'archwm-config-py' or 'archwm-config-pl' or whatever type of configuration and packaging framework exists? (Or archwm-theme-sh or whatever it'd be called.) Or would that be too complicated to coordinate? But that would even remove the gigantic Xdialog dependency and would seem to make everybody happy. So the archwm install function could just spit out a note to 'be sure to get an archwm-config-* package if you wish to enhance your wm further' or something.

iphitus · 2005-08-04 07:28:31

I wasnt saying that 85% of archers use knome (awesome acronym btw). But as it's installed by default, it's unlikely that most archers have removed it. And many archers still have knome installed even though they do not use it.
My point simply, over 90% of archers, if not more, will ave python installed, so arguing it's size aint much of an argument.

But hey! If fvwm is perl centric, then it may be a better idea to use perl....

iphitus

phrakture · 2005-08-04 15:06:04

iphitus wrote:

My point simply, over 90% of archers, if not more, will ave python installed, so arguing it's size aint much of an argument.

namcap requires python - so that would make python a pseudo-standard, as the arch tools depend on it

CyberTron · 2005-08-04 19:28:44

rasat: Your work is great!! Just wondering, since I saw the screenshot, how far have you gotten? are you ready for a alpha release any time soon?

*waitinig on trying arch-fvwm*

rasat · 2005-08-05 02:44:33

Without the installer (archwman) its ready once I get the "Module-Add/Remove" tool to work. Penguin made the development, and now I am trying to fit it in the system.

Buildlist box:
http://thgodef.nerim.net/xdialog/buildlist.gif

CyberTron · 2005-08-05 04:11:35

oh, that sound fabolous , i can't wait to try it out

rasat · 2005-08-05 18:55:25

ArchWM-base 0.2 is ready!
http://user-contributions.org/forums/us … .php?t=267

Legout · 2005-08-06 09:01:03

Is http://user-contributions.org/ down??

I can´t reach this site.

rasat · 2005-08-06 09:45:30

Try again.

iphitus · 2005-08-06 10:17:31

Nop, UCB down here too.

Arch Linux

#26 2005-07-28 15:55:46

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#27 2005-08-03 06:39:55

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#28 2005-08-03 08:57:51

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#29 2005-08-03 09:11:32

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#30 2005-08-03 09:19:27

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#31 2005-08-03 09:22:18

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#32 2005-08-03 09:24:51

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#33 2005-08-03 11:01:03

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#34 2005-08-03 11:52:28

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#35 2005-08-03 12:14:27

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#36 2005-08-03 12:23:02

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#37 2005-08-03 12:45:44

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#38 2005-08-03 17:32:16

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#39 2005-08-03 18:08:24

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#40 2005-08-03 22:36:03

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#41 2005-08-04 04:41:13

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#42 2005-08-04 07:28:31

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#43 2005-08-04 15:06:04

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#44 2005-08-04 19:28:44

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#45 2005-08-05 02:44:33

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#46 2005-08-05 04:11:35

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#47 2005-08-05 18:55:25

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#48 2005-08-06 09:01:03

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#49 2005-08-06 09:45:30

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

#50 2005-08-06 10:17:31

Re: ArchWM-base 0.4.2 - it is what you make it.

Board footer