I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

pressh · 2005-09-22 13:01:00

One more thingh about those conky scripts starting from fvwm. You need to put also an exit function (to make sure if you restart fvwm conky is exited and restarted, so not two instances are running simultaneously)

DestroyFunc ExitFunction
AddToFunc ExitFunction
+ I Exec exec killall conky

Snowman · 2005-09-25 05:53:28

For the record, the "flickering" was caused by the double buffer. I've changed my config so it looks like that (it's still on bottom left):

stonecrest · 2005-09-25 06:01:43

pressh wrote:

One more thingh about those conky scripts starting from fvwm. You need to put also an exit function (to make sure if you restart fvwm conky is exited and restarted, so not two instances are running simultaneously)
DestroyFunc ExitFunction
AddToFunc ExitFunction
+ I Exec exec killall conky

No, you don't. Just do the following in your StartFunction

+ I Test (Init) Exec exec conky

This will only run conky on fvwm's first start. Similarly, you can do things like Test (Restart) if you only want things to happen on fvwm restarts.

pressh · 2005-09-26 05:44:02

stonecrest wrote:

No, you don't. Just do the following in your StartFunction

Yes indeed, i got some of those functions as well.don't know why I did not use it for conky. I will when I'm finished rewriting my config (splitting in even smaller files and using scripts to easy switch between config settings) Anyone still got some interesting ideas for putting in my fvwm config? (I just noticed a few days ago an idea of taviso, who is using dynamic window options, so the window option menu (if you have one) changes with application)

dtw · 2005-12-05 11:29:23

I have now made the permenant switch to fvwm from fluxbox - they never did fix half the bugs...

Dusty · 2005-12-05 15:51:15

:-o fvwm!? that's hardcore. You must like to write vim plugins too....

Dusty

iBertus · 2005-12-05 21:15:13

I've never could get FVWM to work like I wanted and now I don't have time to fool with it. Have any of the new PekWM converts had luck with it?

droog · 2005-12-06 07:28:39

Wow, this thread is still going. go FVWM.

ozar · 2005-12-06 18:20:13

droog wrote:

Wow, this thread is still going. go FVWM.

He did... read the forth post above this one.

phrakture · 2005-12-06 18:29:35

Dusty wrote:

:-o fvwm!? that's hardcore. You must like to write vim plugins too....
Dusty

While funny, I agree with your sentiment. Fvwm is cool, and the idea is nice, but it's just to "bulky" to deal with as far as configuration goes.

ozar · 2005-12-06 19:04:07

phrakture wrote:

Fvwm is cool, and the idea is nice, but it's just to "bulky" to deal with as far as configuration goes.

hehe... I tried it 4 or 5 times before finally deciding to really dig in and get serious with it. Now that I've done that, I'm very happy with it, and have a much better understanding about how WMs work.

That said, it's a bit of a beast to anyone that hasn't attempted it before. :shock:

droog · 2005-12-11 04:10:28

I agree, fvwm is what you make it. you can trim it down alot if you have the time or want. after you use it for awhile you either love it or hate it or don't have the time to deal with it.

But no matter what anyone says it is the best wm...

Dusty · 2005-12-11 06:28:53

heeeeeeeeeeere we go again!

Dusty

droog · 2005-12-11 22:12:51

how is phrakwm or archwm doing i havent been online in awhile. what are you using now dusty? I just got done using kde for about a month while converting some family members. so i'm wanting to try something new too besides fvwm. maybe ill try pekwm i've heard good things about it.

mmccaskill · 2005-12-12 19:25:20

I tried FVWM but it is too much work to get it how I like it. Fluxbox works for me. I think what everyone should remember is that it is not important which is ultimately better overall, but what is ultimately better for yourself.

dtw · 2005-12-13 13:17:34

Indeed - therefore I am locking this thread, it's served it's purpose!

Arch Linux

#76 2005-09-22 13:01:00

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#77 2005-09-25 05:53:28

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#78 2005-09-25 06:01:43

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#79 2005-09-26 05:44:02

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#80 2005-12-05 11:29:23

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#81 2005-12-05 15:51:15

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#82 2005-12-05 21:15:13

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#83 2005-12-06 07:28:39

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#84 2005-12-06 18:20:13

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#85 2005-12-06 18:29:35

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#86 2005-12-06 19:04:07

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#87 2005-12-11 04:10:28

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#88 2005-12-11 06:28:53

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#89 2005-12-11 22:12:51

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#90 2005-12-12 19:25:20

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#91 2005-12-13 13:17:34

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

Board footer