Re: set-frame-position - is it a buf?

Re: set-frame-position - is it a buf?

[Friedrich Laher]

meanwhile
I tried the MWM windowmanager and fvwm2

under MWM the effect is the same, under fvwm2 it works ok
but
repeating often by while the frame is again and again shifted left after 
some way shifting right
( but even the no vertical error )

Re: set-frame-position - is it a buf?

[Thomas A. Horsley]

I've just been tracking down weird fvwm2 window position problems and found
that if you upgrade to the latest development version you can put a style
entry in your fvwm config file to get fvwm to behave in the old non-standard
way that every other window manager behaves (apparently the ICCCM standards
have been "improved" to resolve window position ambiguities in exactly the
opposite way that virtually all window managers interpreted the ambiguity -
that's what I love about standards bodies - either that or the standard was
improved to be so much more ambiguous that the fvwm2 developers can't
understand it and are misinterpreting it - I'm not sure which :-)

In my config file, the relevant bit is:

   Style * MoveByProgramMethod UseGravity
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
      email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL      |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+

Re: set-frame-position - is it a buf?

[Henrik Enberg]

> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:29:44 +0200
> From: Friedrich Laher <fritz.laher@schmieder-laher.de>
> 
> meanwhile
> I tried the MWM windowmanager and fvwm2
> 
> under MWM the effect is the same, under fvwm2 it works ok but
> repeating often by while the frame is again and again shifted left
> after some way shifting right ( but even the no vertical error )

It should perhaps be noted that according to X11 standards,
window-managers are free to place windows wherever they like.  They
don't have to obey the applications requests.