On 2024-07-24, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2024 03:12:10 GMT, arnold@freefriends.org (Aharon Robbins) wrote
> I'd love to run this on my root X window, but xfce seems
> to want to cover it up with its own desktop. Even
> tried a transparent image as a background, but it still
> covered the root window with a solid color.
>
> Does anyone know how to get xfce to get out of the way,
> and let me see the root X window in all its glory?

Possibly some help here:
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/xearth-and-the-root-window-how.9952/
https://docs.xfce.org/xfce/xfdesktop/start

Will probably involve starting xfdesktop initial configuration, if you
can find the right xfce startup script to modify.

On 7/22/24 9:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:52:55 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/24 4:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, the Windows command line often requires the use of
>>> Registry edits, with those cryptic UUID keys, instead of simple,
>>> straightforward *nix-style text config files. This makes things way too
>>> fiddly and error- prone, even for Windows experts.
>>
>> I miss the days when each program had its own .ini file which could be
>> fixed if you did something stupid.
>
> Text-based config files are clearly the way to go, which is why *nix
> systems have stuck with them to this day.
>
> Trouble is, Windows had no standard place to put them. So developers
> scattered them all over the place. The Registry was Microsoft’s attempt to
> get the mess under control. So now you have a mess of keys scattered all
> over the Registry instead.

Putting an entire program and its .ini file in ONE subdirectory would
have been nice. Forget libraries unless they're all in one place and
their ownership (program, not user) and usage are clearly discernible.
I know it wasn't possible due to storage limitations back in Olden
tymes, but drives are dirt cheap now.

Wordstar and your files all fit on a floppy. We didn't appreciate what
we had!

--
Cheers, Bev (Registered Linux User 85683)
Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really
embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen
an angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph. They'd be a
lot more careful about what they say if they had. -- Linus Torvalds

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:05:44 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> Putting an entire program and its .ini file in ONE subdirectory would
> have been nice.

I imagine that’s what they did, and that’s what led to the mess. That
means that, when you reinstall (or likely even upgrade), you lose your
original config customizations.

The right answer is what the Linux community came up with: a package
manager that can keep track of where all the bits go (executables, shared
libraries, read-only data etc), can manage common dependencies, and can
special-case configuration files so customizations don’t get lost (at
least not automatically) on an upgrade.

> Wordstar and your files all fit on a floppy. We didn't appreciate what
> we had!

I used an Apple Mac, back in the days when you didn’t even need
installers: just drag the apps off the distribution media onto your system
drive.

Those days are long gone. Modern problems need modern solutions.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:34 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:52:55 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/24 4:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, the Windows command line often requires the use of
>>> Registry edits, with those cryptic UUID keys, instead of simple,
>>> straightforward *nix-style text config files. This makes things way too
>>> fiddly and error- prone, even for Windows experts.
>>
>> I miss the days when each program had its own .ini file which could be
>> fixed if you did something stupid.
>
> Text-based config files are clearly the way to go, which is why *nix
> systems have stuck with them to this day.
>
> Trouble is, Windows had no standard place to put them. So developers
> scattered them all over the place. The Registry was Microsoft’s attempt to
> get the mess under control. So now you have a mess of keys scattered all
> over the Registry instead.

And there's all the weird binary setting formats that apps use..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-07-13, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> writes:
>
>> Link: https://www.osnews.com/story/140172/getting-the-most-out-of-twm-x11s-default-window-manager/
>>
>> Graham's TWM page[1] has been around for like two decades or so and
>> still isn't even remotely as old as TWM itself....few people know it
>> exists -- how many people even know X has a default window manager?
>> -- and even fewer people know you can actually style it, too.
>
> I've been using twm since 1999. My very first Linux install (Caldera)
> came up with KDE and XEmacs by default. I had used uwm -- even fewer
> frills that twm -- on Unix guest accounts for a decade before that.
> So real soon, switched to Slackware, GNU Emacs and twm. Never looked
> back.
>
> An annoyance I've encountered with twm is that in more recent
> Linuxen, programs have specs for their own icons. So, e.g., when you
> iconify xterm, Seamonkey or Firefox, you get great, huge icons rather
> than minimal ones just big enough to hold the related window's title.
>
> I keep a column of icons stacked down the left side of my screen --
> emacsen, xterms some of which hold running apps such as wicd-curses,
> dmesg -w or tail -f, Seamonkey etc. and a non-iconified xclock. The
> icons are all small and the column tidy. Huge icons screw it up.
>
> Tnx to Ivan Shmakov (comp.misc, 09 Sep 2017) I learned how to fix
> that. In .twmrc I have:
>
> ForceIcons
> Icons {
> "UXTerm" "vlines2"
> "XTerm" "vlines2"
> "Firefox" "vlines2"
> "SeaMonkey" "vlines2"
> "Emacs" "vlines2"
> }
>
> where the left column is what is returned by xprop(1) for a given
> window and my be camel case:
>
> WM_CLASS(STRING) = "Navigator", "SeaMonkey"
>
> With this fix in .twmrc, all icons are just big enough to hold the
> window title.
>
> The only other annoyance is that some programs won't run unless they
> can find a system "tray". I use wicd-curses (for which I have been
> reproved somewhat snarkily) because NetworkManager(8) is one of them
> and wicd-curses(8) works fine in an xterm.
>
> I see there is some stuff about "stand-alone tray" usable with twm but
> I haven't yet pursued it.
>
> BTW, I run XEarth for my root window. Does anybody have/know the
> location of the source code for XEarth? I'd hate to give it up when
> I'm eventually forced into 64 bits and I seem to have lost the source
> if I ever had it.
>
>> Links:
>>
>> [1]: https://www.cpcnw.co.uk/twm/twmrc.htm (link)
>> [2]: https://www.cpcnw.co.uk/twm2/Grahams_TWM_page2.html (link)
>
> Thanks for the pointers. Configuring twm is "easy" but the details
> tend to be opaque. Examples such and those are invaluable.

Similar, but with CWM or Blackbox with Emacs. Blackbox has no keybindings
support, so everything goes into Emacs. As I launch it at ~/.xinitrc before
blacbox, it works perfectly fine.

Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> wrote:
> On 2024-07-13, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>> Thanks for the pointers. Configuring twm is "easy" but the details
>> tend to be opaque. Examples such and those are invaluable.
>
> Similar, but with CWM or Blackbox with Emacs. Blackbox has no
> keybindings support, so everything goes into Emacs. As I launch
> it at ~/.xinitrc before blacbox, it works perfectly fine.

blackbox use to have builtin key bindings, but the author
moved all that logic to a separate utility called bbkeys, I
think for version 6. IIRC, bbkeys could be used with other
window managers back then.

https://github.com/bbidulock/bbkeys

A lot of people did not like that change and I believe fluxbox
was created as a result. At the time I thought it was a decent
idea.

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

On 2024-07-14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2024 03:12:10 GMT, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>
>> I have put xearth 1.1 up on my site:
>> https://www.skeeve.com/xearth-1.1.tar.gz.
>
> Is that different from this <https://xearth.org/>?

XPlanet it's free as in freedom and it can have far more features.