Live data from Hacker News

FVWM-95 (2001)

fvwm95.sourceforge.net

41–50 of 105 posts

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#41
I still use it (shout out taviso iykyk).

https://github.com/zy/zy-fvwm/blob/master/fvwmrc/taviso.fvwm...

Someone made a full cde style desktop with fvwm: https://github.com/NsCDE/NsCDE

It’s too bad tech seems so much to take away this kind of configurability in the name of “we know better”. There’s so much to be said for software that can last so long, as opposed to the constant treadmill of forced updates.

Fuck gnome eternally for destroying gtk and fuck Wayland.

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#42

Insane homepage pull vro It's incredible how much charm there was in these interfaces, specifically in the bitmap fonts. Were GUI applications more or less graphically diverse than now ?

The fact that almost anybody could make a Window Manager on X lead to a tremendous amount of experimentation and variety. Almost all of them were half baked and faded to obscurity, but it was a lot of fun to try them out. Also, if your bar is "better than TWM" then it's a pretty easy target to hit. These days the level of effort to even get to the baseline is way higher, one dude in a weekend can't try out some crazy idea.

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#43
post #6

This was a kludgey hack that never managed to land upstream, yet utterly dominated (for a brief moment) the headspace of the early linux desktop. It's funny how quickly things were moving at the time. In the mid 90's, GUI design elements were still in their infancy. Even basic stuff like "what do windows do?" was in flux. Traditional X window managers hadn't settled on anything like a regular usage model: twm was sti…

I ran Motif from a terminal, and used command lines to bring up windows. Windows 95 felt like a toy in comparison, not to mention PC performance was pretty sad when compared to a high-end unix workstation. To each their own I guess.

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#45
post #38

I'm on JWM since Ubuntu switched away from gnome 2x in 2012 (13 years) and my desktop is unchanged every since. I don't update OS to relearn basic controls every 2 years, I update OS to get latest versions of apps.

I'm using KDE since 3.x days, and still use the same setup, same controls and same workflows in KDE 6.x. It's just more modern and hardware accelerated.

KDE is a powerhouse. I probably replace 10-15 applications just by using what's built-in to that.

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#46
post #36
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I remain amazed at how people even today will argue like this trying to avoid talking nice about MS. You're misconstruing the point, seemingly deliberately.) Sure, on $15k ($30k in 2025 dollars) Mac II's. See also the answer elsewhere about NeXTSTEP being a player in this space. No one was doing it in the consumer space, no consumer knew about that stuff, Linux consumers on their 14" 800x600 monitors sure hadn't see…

Early GEM allowed arbitrary window sizing and positioning at least within the file manager, and Apple thus sued them, because they felt they had exclusive rights to ideas that they stole from Xerox Also, the Amiga had the window management you refer to in its earliest versions, in 1984. Amigas cost a hell of a lot less than $15,000, even packed to the brim with expansions. I grew up with the Amiga, so your assertion…

[flagged]

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#47
post #6

This was a kludgey hack that never managed to land upstream, yet utterly dominated (for a brief moment) the headspace of the early linux desktop. It's funny how quickly things were moving at the time. In the mid 90's, GUI design elements were still in their infancy. Even basic stuff like "what do windows do?" was in flux. Traditional X window managers hadn't settled on anything like a regular usage model: twm was sti…

> Then Windows 95 landed like a bomb: there was a CLOSE button in the corner of the window finally! And there was a start menu and a little status bar! And that's what we all decided we wanted, really badly. So it got cloned and picked up pervasively. Basically everyone not already part of one of the X11 camps was running this. Huh? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but Mac windows had close buttons even as far back as S…

Did the mac close actually close?

I have memories of being endlessly frustrated trying to use an iMac because "close" would just hide the window.

We've gone full circle, and now everything in windows likes to treat close as "minimize to system tray", but back in win9x era, the expectation was that close was "terminate the application".

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#48
post #5

“ The main distribution site has moved from mitac11.uia.ac.be to sourceforge.” The last time I revisited one of these old X projects, I wound up wasting time with libraries that have been deprecated for a decade or more.

xmkmf. I feel your pain.

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#49
fvwm is still one of the default graphical environments in Slackware (even in -current), and fvwm95 came packaged for some time, too. Now fvwm95 is no longer part of the basic Slackware distribution but there's a SlackBuild for it:

https://slackbuilds.org/repository/15.0/desktop/fvwm95/

I like the Win95 aesthetic, but I like a close relative, KDE1, better; and I have configured my Plasma 6 setup along these lines. Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/Q9Gfs08

Back into FVWM, Slackware also has a SlackBuild for the next-gen fvwm3. FVWM configurability could be amazing, although it can be a challenge.

Re: FVWM-95 (2001)

#50
post #37

The original fvwm was my first window manager in Linux back in 1995, I was not a fan of the evolution into fvwm-95, though. By then I was already into other window managers.

IIRC fvwm95 was not meant as a next-gen fvwm, but as a customization of the existing fvwm desktop.
Post reply on HN