Talk:FVWM

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

"This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale." What's up with that ? Although I never used it and probably never will. It still is a popular wm. I strongly disagree with "low-importance" ! Garo (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fvwmlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does fvwm2 fit into the timeline?--Hhielscher 15:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains this sentence:

Ion and Larswm, VTWM, in that Sawfish or Kwin is more with Ctwm.

I can't figure out what this sentence is trying to say. Can someone clean this up, or should we just delete it? Riordanmr (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is typo in the "Derivatives" picture, it reads "Enlightement" i think it should read "Enlightenment" as in "http://www.enlightenment.org/"

A lot of time passed, nothing changed. I'll do it. --oKtosiTe ^talk 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBSD seems to use FVWM 2.0.46. Looking at a Git mirror of the Fvwm code, the license was changed to GPL after that. (The version does not seem be explicitly clear...)

A patch adding the text of the GPL was added on 12 Nov 1998. The Changelog at that time, show that it was shortly after version 2.0.46. (It also seems to be shortly after Dominik Vogt took over maintenance, seemingly from Steve Robbins). Looking at this it seems that the GPL transition was announced 1999-04-08.... MoHaG (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit by Eupsychos. While Debian linux used GNU/Linux in their release materials through Debian 5, by the time Debian 7 came out, they were no longer doing this. This matches the preferred style from MOS:Linux.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debian is still using GNU/Linux in Debian 8 (see /etc/os-release file). Ditto for the next release (stretch). Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent Lefèvre: Different notion of "release materials". I consulted these pages from debian.org:

Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 released

Debian 6.0 Squeeze released

Debian 7.0 Wheezy released

Debian 8 Jessie released

I'll go with the MOS:Linux preference under these circumstances.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the pages you cite, "Linux" alone is never used (except for the kernel). It is said either "Debian GNU/Linux" or just "Debian", never "Debian Linux". MOS:Linux says:

The term "GNU/Linux" may still be written as part of the proper names of individual operating systems and Linux distributions.

which is the case here. And the "See also" links also give Debian as an example where "GNU/Linux" should be used instead of just "Linux". Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the "GNU/Linux" has been dropped on the announcement page for Debian 6.0 because it now also covers Debian GNU/kFreeBSD (in addition to Debian GNU/Linux). Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – I'm satisified with the way you've left it.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debian GNU/Linux --Eupsychos (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedians !

My intention was to precise that the FVWM X session is running in Debian with Linux kernel by using the full name "Debian GNU/Linux" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupsychos (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on FVWM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040201203730/http://www.fvwm.org/ to http://www.fvwm.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040203131154/http://xwinman.org/fvwm.html to http://www.xwinman.org/fvwm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816221935/http://fvwmwiki.xteddy.org/IRC/HashFvwm/ to http://fvwmwiki.xteddy.org/IRC/HashFvwm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121181951/http://fvwmwiki.xteddy.org/ to http://fvwmwiki.xteddy.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FVWM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516075356/http://www.fvwm.org/history.php to http://fvwm.org/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]