Slashdot Mirror


fvwm Turns Ten

Some Old Dude writes "fvwm, F* Virtual Window Manager, is celebrating its 10th birthday in a few days. This is the window manager I used when cutting my Linux teeth back in the last millennium, and the one I still use today (after trying many newer ones). If it's been a while since you've seen what fvwm can do, check out its features and screenshots."

41 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. Anniversary release by gleather · · Score: 5, Informative

    They released a new version today QUOTE: http://freshmeat.net/projects/fvwm/ The changes in this release are as follows: All single letter variables are deprecated, and multiletter variables are provided. The NoWarp menu position hint option works with root menus too. WindowListFunc is executed within a window context, so a prefix "WindowId $0" is no longer needed in its definition, and it is advised to remove it from user configs. FvwmEvent executes all window related events within a window context, so PassId is not needed anymore, and all prefixes "WindowId $0" may be removed from user event handlers.

    --
    Idiot.
  2. Choice is good... by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unless all of the choices suck.

  3. Mummy? by GauteL · · Score: 5, Funny

    What does F* stand for?

    1. Re:Mummy? by David+Gould · · Score: 3, Funny

      What does F* stand for?

      I've always heard it explained as "Feeble".

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    2. Re:Mummy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      [From the fvwm faq:]

      1.1 What does FVWM stand for?

      A: "Fill_in_the_blank_with_whatever_f_word_you_like_a t_the_time
      Virtual Window Manager". Rob Nation (the original Author of FVWM)
      doesn't really remember what the F stood for originally, so we
      have several potential answers:

      Feeble, Fabulous, Famous, Fast, Foobar, Fantastic, Flexible,
      F!@#$%, Flashy, FVWM (the GNU recursive approach), Free, Final,
      Funky, Fred's (who the heck is Fred?), Freakin', Flawed,
      Father-of-all, Feivel (the mouse from "An American Tail"),
      Frungy (hey, where does that come from?), Floppy, Foxy,
      Frenzied, Funny, Fumbling etc.

      Just pick your Favorite (hey, there's another one!), which will of
      course change depending on your mood and whether or not you've run
      across any bugs recently. I prefer Fabulous or Fantastic myself,
      although I often use F!@#$% or Freakin' while debugging...

      Recently 'Feline' is becoming popular. Perhaps this has something
      to do with the discovery that four of the six core developers have
      cats (averaging 1.17 cats)? Miaow.

      Know what? I found another one while stroking my cats: FEEDING :-)

      Check this link:
      fvwm-cats

    3. Re:Mummy? by krumms · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mummy what does F* stand for?

      It stands for 'fuck' - what do they teach you in school these days?

  4. Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I forgot to buy it a gift. I'm so screwed.

  5. Cool screenshots... by Stalemate · · Score: 4, Funny

    and a catchy name too. It really rolls right off of your tongue about like a sawblade. ;)

  6. Re:Even THAT deserves a mention in slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gnome (and probably KDE) isn't a window manager, it's a desktop environment. You use something like icewm, sawfish or metacity as the window manager.

  7. tried and true by SonicTooth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    fvwm and tvwm are two great window managers espiecally when you're cutting edge gnome/kde/fluxbox/etc... refuses to work, and you just have to get something done graphicly. I know i've fallen back on them more then once. That coupled with the fact that they're so damn small, keeps them on my my small hard drive.

  8. Happy Birthday! by MacOS_Rules · · Score: 4, Funny

    F* yes! Happy F*'ing birthday! (The BSD devel made me do it).

    Really, thanks and congrats to the developers of this great WM: this was my first Linux non-CLI, and it remains my favorite.

    --
    If a man's character is to be abused there's nobody like a relative to do the business. -Thackeray, William
  9. fvwm allowed me to make my perfect linux desktop by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After trying out kde, gnome and xfce, I went back to fvwm and couldn't be happer with my current setup. The only thing on my desktop when I login is a single xterm. I can launch anything I need from there, but I also spent some time to customize my root menu (right-click on desktop) to give me quick access to the apps and scripts I use the most (including xterm -- I forgot to put that in their the first time around... didn't notice it until I accidently closed my one and only xterm -- oops!)

  10. Reparenting window managers are for wimps by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 4, Funny

    REAL men use the console. For those forced to use those silly window gadgets by their PHBs, there's NAWM: Not a Window Manager. Non-reparenting, non-eye candy, pure window management functionality and nothing more. Check it out.

    --
    In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
    1. Re:Reparenting window managers are for wimps by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Real men eat pancakes in the morning, fart in bed, dress in women's clothing, and hang around in bars.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  11. birthdays by bongobongo · · Score: 5, Funny

    my hypercard stack "Escape From The Dark Cassel [sic]" turned 12 today... can we celebrate that too?

    1. Re: birthdays by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeaah. How old is Hypercard itself anyway? That's the birthday I'm getting a gift for. I remember my first Hypercard stack. Drawing of a naked woman; when you clicked her nipple it made noises and played screen effects. Immature and simple, yes, but it still beats the hell out of fvwm.

  12. Re:why didn't this window manager die LONG AGO? by McSnarf · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Aaah ! A troll !

    Here's some food for ya !

    How to explain FVWM to a troll ?

    In the good old days, when THE distribution was something you downloaded as floppy images, when a 386 DX with 16 megs was considered a nice machine (with your file server being a 486/33), when you had a Minix FS and hex-edited your boot device on your boot floppy, in those old days you did not want a *huge* window manager.

    But after downloading the slackware X series of floppy disks, you wanted SOME kind of WM.

    And yes, it was cosidered a bonus to open an xterm without the system starting to swap.

    Can your stomach take more, little troll ?

  13. FVWM stands for ... from the FAQ by yppiz · · Score: 4, Informative
    FVWM FAQ - what does FVWM stand for?
    1.1 What does FVWM stand for?

    A: "Fill_in_the_blank_with_whatever_f_word_you_like_a t_the_time Virtual Window Manager". Rob Nation (the original Author of FVWM) doesn't really remember what the F stood for originally, so we have several potential answers: ...

    --Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

  14. Re:fvwm allowed me to make my perfect linux deskto by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
    > After trying out kde, gnome and xfce, I went back to fvwm and couldn't be happer with my current setup.

    <AOL>Me too</AOL^>

    "Mouse? Oh, you mean the thing I use to figure out what xterm I want to type in."

    (Cripes, even the FVWM screenshots on the almost-slashdotted page look almost too glitzy for my tastes ;-)

  15. Happy Freakin' Birthday? by suwain_2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is like a "Happy friggin' birthday" greeting. "It's your birthday, here's the Slashdot effect for your birthday." And they can't effectively return the gift if they don't like it.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  16. Featherweight by Newtonian_p · · Score: 5, Informative
    The 'F' stands for Featherweight. It was called that way because it was originally less ressource intensive than twm (tabbed window manager) on which it is based.

    The author might have forgot what his acronym stands for but some people remember the original announcement.

    --

    There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't

    1. Re:Featherweight by cbiffle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yup, just as many of us have not forgotten that the K in KDE is for Kool, or was originally. I wonder why they didn't call it CDE...erm, wait....

      But, though KDE is still quite kool if your spelling is atrocious, FVWM need not necessarily be Featherweight in name or functionality. Acronyms can change. Take good ol' Personal Home Page.

  17. Re:On fvwm... by PD · · Score: 3, Funny

    And if you'd quit pestering him about how ugly his fonts are he'd actually get that thesis done.

  18. Re:fvwm should be euthanized for the good of *nix by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets stack FVWM up with its contemporary, Windows 3.0 and then see who runs home crying.

    FVWM had the 3D look of Motif without the awkwardness of OpenLook and because it was just an X Window Manager it avoided the OS integration of MS Windows.

    Newer GUIs like WindowsXP and Aqua, GNOME, KDE, etc. move beyond the window manager concept to the entire visual user experience.

  19. pager by austad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The pager in FVWM is the epitome of how a pager should be.

    FVWM was the first WM I ever used (on SunOS back in the early 90's). I absolutely hated the pager, but I didn't know how to turn it off. After about 2 weeks of it, I can't live without it now. All of my boxes, OSX (VirtualDesktop), Windows(JSPager), Linux(crappy KDE pager), they all have one now. But, none of them even come close to fvwm's.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  20. RedHat is lame by mallan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (rant)

    Why on earth did RedHat take FVWM out of its distrubution? Like many long time Linux users, FVWM has been my window manager for years. It's small, fast, flexible, and infinitely configurable - with three CDs of space for RedHat 9, you'd think they'd be able to find a couple of megs for FVWM. Even their "switchdesk" utility still wants FVWM as an option.

    Taking FVWM out of the standard distribution is just plain dumb, not to mention insulting to many Linux users. How many years was FVWM the default window manager for RedHat? I've been using FVWM for years on RedHat, but now I have to change to a more "modern" window manager because they can't spare 3 megs on their distribution CDs? Grrr.

    (/rant)

    --
    "Good people drink good beer"
  21. well, there are probably better choices now by 73939133 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fvwm was nice back then. But even if you want a small, light-weight window manager, there are probably better choices than fvwm these days: Oroborus, Blackbox, IceWM, Ion, to name just a few. Their code tends to be cleaner and their configuration and code tends to be more modular.

  22. Re:Why bother by Panoramix · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why don't FVWM developers focus on something more modern, like GNOME, KDE or XPDE? Especially the latter, since it focuses on "duplicating Windows XP interface down to the pixel point". I've always maintained that Linux needs to be virtually indentical to Windows in feel, down to the DOS prompt drive letters to make the techies feel at home.

    Well, I use FVWM. It is my WM of choice, and I like it a lot. It is small, it is (very) fast, it is scriptable, it does not look nor act like a Windows knock-off (though you can probably make it, both, of course). And I use it on fast machines, mind you, it's not that I couln't use KDE. It's just that I like plain X + FVWM better.

    And it does have some cute features. I have impressed a couple of friends with FVWM's "stroke" thing, starting apps and controlling audio volume and stuff, by drawing shapes on the screen with the mouse---though I must say that I don't really have much use for that, save for showing off.

    How else are you going to see mass adoption?

    I wonder why is that so many of you regard mass adoption as something so desirable that justifies turning a first-class Unix system (oops, hope no SCO spies are reading this) into a bad Windows clone. Or even a good one. I just can't see the point: if a user needs something Windows-like, well, there is Windows already.

    If I were to say what to do, I'd have people stop wasting time cloning Windows, and use it to make Linux a better Unix. And as for GUIs, I'd like to see a good GUI in the Unix style. Like, say, apps with hybrid command line/graphic interfaces. Graphic pipelines, perhaps? Or if you have to copy it, something in the NextStep/OSX style (last time I checked, GNUStep was nowhere near usable). I don't know.

    But then again, neither me nor you nor anyone can make Linux developers do this or that; everybody is free to choose what to do with our Linux-hacking time. Fortunately.

  23. Re:speaking of old window managers by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "I was surprised to find twm when I installed X11 on OS X."

    I have, more than once, been incredibly relieved to find twm installed as a part of X on machines (not OS 10). Because when the install fails without getting all 90 billion parts of gnome or kde installed correctly, or using an old machine that can't handle the latest and greatest, I can use twm as a marginally useful window manager to start getting things done.

    And when this happens, the one of the first things I do is download and install fvwm. Woohoo!

  24. My .fvwm2rc file. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's the one I'm using right now:
    my .fvwm2rc file
    Here is a screenshot:
    screenshot for above fvwm2rc
    Here's a neat trick: Put that .png image in Opera 6.12, and press the "F11" key for fullscreen. On a 14" monitor, it will appear as if you are actually running fvwm, with this file, and you can say "Hey, I formatted your HDD, put Mandrake on it!" Only thing, none of the buttons work, so the joke comes to a quick end for the observant.
    Like most folks that post their .fvwm2rc on the internet, I have to say that this is not my latest .fvwm2rc, as working on these is somewhat of a hobby and I'm always trying to improve it.
    Here is a .fvwm2rc for a user account:
    click here
    That one gives an entirely different-looking setup, designed for those who do not have root access. As you can see, I like what fvwm can do, and try to learn more about it when I can. Examples posted on the internet help a lot.

  25. Re:You have a woman's window manager by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since you're clearly as mad as a mongoose, I'll bid you farewell.

    graspee

  26. Why FVWM matters by crucini · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A lot of folks seem to think that Windows represents the pinnacle of GUI aesthetics, and that everything else (except Apple) should try to copy it. These folks look down on fvwm as "not even as good as Windows 3.1".

    I don't agree. I like the Unix desktop at its most Unixy - clean, efficient andminimal. No need to waste pixels catering for an idiot when this desktop is the interface for a computer professional. But if I wanted to waste some pixels, and I have in the past, I'd waste them on stuff that looks cool to my aesthetic, not what looks reassuring to some marketer trying to soothe the average user.

    If you want to understand the "real" window managers, like fvwm, Afterstep, etc., realize three things:
    1. They aren't trying to be "as good as Windows 3.1". They're in a totally different space. Just because they run on PC hardware now doesn't mean they partake of the PC mentality. These WM's can be configured from minimal to maximal, but at maximal they express a strong aesthetic that's quite different from consumer OS's.
    2. Forget about "user friendliness". Real WM's are delicately balanced between aesthetics and efficiency, leaving little room for user-friendliness, which means accomodation to beginners. Let beginners use Gnome/KDE if they're unwilling to learn, or learn the real stuff if they're willing. More importantly, real user friendliness requires the WM to know things about applications, the machine, etc. I prefer my WM ignorant and agnostic - a mere conduit for my actions.
    3. Don't judge them by how they "look". They don't look like anything - they're quite user-tunable, which is half the fun. The screenshots only give hints of the scope of customization. The feeling of running a desktop that you built is completely different from the feeling you get looking at someone else's desktop.

    I don't like CDE very much, but CDE is clean and technical-looking in a way that Windows isn't. Almost everyone would happily go from CDE to KDE or Gnome, but I'd feel some loss of Unix flavor.

    (I've ignored the fact that fvwm works with Gnome - you could have the fvwm coolness and the Gnome user-friendliness, I guess.)

    I'm currently running fluxbox at work and AfterStep at home. I like a lot of what I see in the fvwm release - it seems the good window managers are converging and adopting the best features.

    I know there will always be a small group that thinks as I do, but I'm afraid we're not communicating very well. Tons of newcomers are pouring into Linux, and most of them have only seen Microsoft Windows. Therefore they're inclined to view the desktop through a Microsoft lens, even as they criticize Microsoft.

    I don't like Microsoft software. I find it disgusting from concept to execution, from GUI aesthetics to file formats. I don't want anything on my machines to look like that.
    1. Re:Why FVWM matters by entrigant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Either you are a really good troll or you truely believe what you just said. Perhaps you don't realize the elitism and self induced masochism behind your words.. perhaps you do. Either way, I feel compelled to make a counter, and I intend it to be as vague and pointless as your perspective.

      A lot of folks seem to think that Windows represents the pinnacle of GUI aesthetics, and that everything else (except Apple) should try to copy it. These folks look down on fvwm as "not even as good as Windows 3.1".

      First, I do not see how believing fvwm lags behind Windows 3.1 in technology as saying the same thing as Windows is the pinnacle of GUI aesthetics. Please do not put words into peoples mouths to suit your needs. Most people mean exactly what they say. When I say product A is not as good as product B I do not hide any subtext claiming product B is the best. Just that it's better. (For the record, I do NOT think windows 3.1 is better than fvwm, not by a long shot.)

      I don't agree. I like the Unix desktop at its most Unixy - clean, efficient andminimal. No need to waste pixels catering for an idiot when this desktop is the interface for a computer professional. But if I wanted to waste some pixels, and I have in the past, I'd waste them on stuff that looks cool to my aesthetic, not what looks reassuring to some marketer trying to soothe the average user.

      This may be a given, but minimal does not imply efficien tor clean, efficient does not imply minimal or clean, and clean does not imply efficient or minimal. These are all seperate and non-related attributes. As a computer professional who stares at a monitor all damn day, I prefer to look at something pretty. Also, because my desktop is pretty does not mean I am a "clueless idiot newb" nor does it imply I do not know what I am doing. MY desktop is also pretty according to my tastes, and not the tastes of a marketing rep. See, most of us don't configure our computers to be what other people think they should be, and the fact that you would presume we do is flat out insulting.

      They aren't trying to be "as good as Windows 3.1". They're in a totally different space. Just because they run on PC hardware now doesn't mean they partake of the PC mentality. These WM's can be configured from minimal to maximal, but at maximal they express a strong aesthetic that's quite different from consumer OS's.

      As ambiguous as this is I will attempt to make sense of this. I do not know exactly what you mean by "PC Mentality" as I do not see how the goals of PC users are any different from any computer user. Most of us just want to use our PC's to do what we do, and to be able to do that in a manner that we enjoy. MOST of us don't think we should make our computing experience feel like hard work. This is, however, not the typical attitude of the elitist.

      I am, as you may have guessed, a KDE user. Seeing as the whole of KDE is an environment and not a simple window manager most comparisons are immediately invalid or rediculous. I will try to make one though. I can configure KDE to present me with nothing but a background color and a mouse cursor. I can have it present a simple hard to read application menu when I click on this solid colored desktop. I can even have the window frame only be 1 pixel largeon the sides and bottom and 5 pixels large on the top. I can configure it to switch desktops with the mouse wheel or simply by moving the cursor to the edge of the screen and "push" into the next one. I can make it act like any minimal window manager you use, or I could have icons littering my desktop, a full size kicker bar, huge animated mouse cursors, and a liud and obnoxious sound for every little action that can be performed. So.. does that make my wm configurable enough for your stringent standards?

      Forget about "user friendliness". Real WM's are delicately balanced between aesthetics and efficiency, leaving little room for user-friendliness, which means accomodation to beginners.

  27. Top 5 Reason to run FVWM by sflory · · Score: 4, Funny

    1)It was good enough 8 years ago.

    2)I've got nothing better to do than fuck with my .fwm*rc file

    3)My desktop doesn't look enought like ass yet.

    4)I've only got 12M of memory.

    5)What the hell X only holds up my xterms, and mozilla.

    --
    IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
  28. Re:On fvwm... by diaphanous · · Score: 4, Informative
    Knuth is retired and doesn't have graduate students anymore. And if he did have grad students, I suspect they would be doing hardcore algorithmic analysis, not hacking fvwm and X11.

    ~Phillip

  29. Sorry, thanks for playing by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    80386 DX was a full 32 bit chip
    80386 SX was a 386 DX with 24 bit memory bus and maybe a 16 bit data bus

    For faster time to market, the 80386DX could work with an 80287 *or* 80387 math-co. There never was a 386 with built in FPU.

    When Intel introduced the 486, everything changed:
    80486DX had a built in FPU
    80486SX had a built in FPU but was disabled (maybe due to poor QA rating)
    80487 was an 80486DX with alternate pinout to fit in the "487" slot. Upon insertion, the 80486SX is disabled
    80486SL was an 80486SX with some power saving features and lower clock speeds
    80486SLC was a cyrix chip that had 16 bit data bus, 24 bit memory addresses, and no math co. It performed somewhat better than a 386SX but was cheap and drew little power. It was popular for notebook computers.

    80486DX2 was the first clock doubling CPU
    80486DX50 was a rare 50 MHz cpu with no clock doubling
    80486DX2-66 / DX2-50 were clock doubling CPUs
    80486DX4 were clock trippling CPUs

    Then there were a bunch of pentia.

  30. My very first experience with X, Penn State 1990 by The_Dougster · · Score: 4, Funny
    Somehow I managed to wheedle an account on the ultra-elite IBM RT, ostensibly to learn CADAM, and was pissing around with it and I found this mysterious "startx" command which looked promising. I was actually able to start an xterm! In fact I could start as many xterms as I wanted to... in fact there wasn't anything else I could do except start an xterm. But d00d, I had as many xterms as I wanted! Wow! And it was, like, fast! No click MS-DOS Prompt on Windows 2.1 and wait a minute for a shell where I couldn't do anything, instead I had the mysterious $ prompt, with its unlimited possibilites... and unlimited xterms! Wow!


    This was thirteen years ago, mind you. I was 3l337 just because I was _using_ the RT, nevermind there wasn't jack shit installed on it except CADAM :-)

    --
    Clickety Click ...
  31. Why fvwm? by DrQu+xum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because Gnome isn't too swift with Cygwin/X11 on a Celeron 400 running 98SE* (hell, it doesn't even run!) Fvwm, keep on crankin'!

    *-Mum's computer. Mine runs OpenBSD ... and fvwm.

    --
    DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
  32. FVWM: The window manager I keep returning to by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My first experience with Unix-esque systems and X-Windows was in 1993 when I started college. At the time my choice was TWM or FVWM. FVWM was clearly the more advanced option and one of the more advanced window managers at the time. (CDE looked advanced, but was more of a hassle than it was worth.)

    Since then I've tended to be lazy and taken what I was given, stuck with whatever was the default. As a result I spend a long time with Enlightenment followed by SawFish/SawMill. I've dabbled with a number of other window managers.

    Then last year (2002), I took a job back at my old university. The default was still FVWM! And while FVWM had matured, it remained instantly identifable. I hadn't used it in five years, but it came back instantly. It felt right. Sure, it lacks classy menus, but the configuration file was easy enough to use and let me set things up how I wanted. Most window managers are determined to stick the various window management buttons where they want them. FVWM makes it easy to stick them where I want them. It's a minimal WM, I don't run any of the modules except for the pager (to switch between virtual desktops) and the IconMan, a very minimal list of windows on each desktop. My desktop is spartan and I've discovered that I really like it.

  33. Re:Windows 3.0 is dead and buried, so should fvwm by javiercero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a window manager (fvwm) and a desktop environment (gnome).

  34. Re:Usability by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 3, Insightful
    All I can say from the screenshots is that there may be usability issues. Icons are non-instructive, fonts are ugly, window decorations are misguiding (for example, what does the down arrow do ? minimize or close the app ?), etc etc.

    I think you're missing the point.

    fvwm and friends are not designed for or typically used by lusers. They are intended for and used by people who are in control of their machines and know how to manage them. If we don't like the icons or the window decorations, we'll just change them. My personal favourite, wm2 , does not provide any icons at all, and the only way to configure it is to hack the source and recompile. But it's elegant and it doesn't get in my way.

    Yes, so it wouldn't suit everybody. Who cares? I am not everybody, and one size does not fit all.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.