FVWM: new chromium windows off screen

[Harald Dunkel]

Hi folks,

Is there any style I could use to tell fvwm to ignore chromium's
window placement wishes, and to follow the regular window placement
policy instead?

Currently I get just a small stripe of the new chromium window
on the left or right edge of the screen, depending upon the
position of the previous chromium window on the virtual desktop.


Every helpful comment is highly appreciated
Harri

[Dominik Vogt]

Post by Harald Dunkel
Is there any style I could use to tell fvwm to ignore chromium's
window placement wishes, and to follow the regular window placement
policy instead?

Certainly, the question is *which* one. :-)

If you put

BugOpts ExplainWindowPlacement on

in your config file fvwm will emit messages explaining why the
windows end up where they do. If you post that output I can give
hints what to try.

Post by Harald Dunkel
Currently I get just a small stripe of the new chromium window
on the left or right edge of the screen, depending upon the
position of the previous chromium window on the virtual desktop.
Every helpful comment is highly appreciated

Ciao

Dominik ^_^ ^_^

[Harald Dunkel]

Post by Dominik Vogt

Post by Harald Dunkel
Is there any style I could use to tell fvwm to ignore chromium's
window placement wishes, and to follow the regular window placement
policy instead?

Certainly, the question is *which* one. :-)
If you put
BugOpts ExplainWindowPlacement on
in your config file fvwm will emit messages explaining why the
windows end up where they do. If you post that output I can give
hints what to try.

Found it: Its !UsePPosition instead of NoUsePPosition.

Thanx very much
Harri

[Dominik Vogt]

Post by Harald Dunkel

Post by Dominik Vogt

Post by Harald Dunkel
Is there any style I could use to tell fvwm to ignore chromium's
window placement wishes, and to follow the regular window placement
policy instead?

Certainly, the question is *which* one. :-)
If you put
BugOpts ExplainWindowPlacement on
in your config file fvwm will emit messages explaining why the
windows end up where they do. If you post that output I can give
hints what to try.

Found it: Its !UsePPosition instead of NoUsePPosition.

Note that the correct name in NoPPosition, not "NoUsePPosition".

Ciao

Dominik ^_^ ^_^

[Harald Dunkel]

Post by Dominik Vogt

Post by Harald Dunkel
Found it: Its !UsePPosition instead of NoUsePPosition.

Note that the correct name in NoPPosition, not "NoUsePPosition".

Does this mean that NoUsePPosition is not supported at all?
Maybe its just me, but I think the man page about NoUsePPosition,
NoPPosition, !UsePPosition, !USPosition, etc is *highly* confusing.

Maybe it would help to drop the "No" in front of on/off flags
completely?


Regards
Harri

[Dominik Vogt]

Post by Harald Dunkel

Post by Dominik Vogt

Post by Harald Dunkel
Found it: Its !UsePPosition instead of NoUsePPosition.

Note that the correct name in NoPPosition, not "NoUsePPosition".

Does this mean that NoUsePPosition is not supported at all?

Yes. One day I had enough of that zoo of different on-off-options
and since then I only add new options that are negated with an
exclamation mark.

Post by Harald Dunkel
Maybe its just me, but I think the man page about NoUsePPosition,
NoPPosition, !UsePPosition, !USPosition, etc is *highly* confusing.
Maybe it would help to drop the "No" in front of on/off flags
completely?

Yes, it is confusing, and that's one of the first things I'd clean
up if it ever came to fvwm-3.x. Meanwhile, the options are just
there for backwards compatibility. However, I've noticed that the
old options are still used in the man page. I'll change that in a
minute.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^ ^_^

[Harald Dunkel]

Post by Dominik Vogt
Yes, it is confusing, and that's one of the first things I'd clean
up if it ever came to fvwm-3.x. Meanwhile, the options are just
there for backwards compatibility. However, I've noticed that the
old options are still used in the man page. I'll change that in a
minute.

fvwm3? Coooool. I am using fvwm since the early beginnings in 1993.


Regards
Harri

[Chris Bannister]

Post by Harald Dunkel

Post by Dominik Vogt
Yes, it is confusing, and that's one of the first things I'd clean
up if it ever came to fvwm-3.x. Meanwhile, the options are just
there for backwards compatibility. However, I've noticed that the
old options are still used in the man page. I'll change that in a
minute.

fvwm3? Coooool. I am using fvwm since the early beginnings in 1993.

The key phrase is "*IF* it ever came to". That is how rumours start!

[Michael Treibton]

Post by Chris Bannister

Post by Harald Dunkel

Post by Dominik Vogt
Yes, it is confusing, and that's one of the first things I'd clean
up if it ever came to fvwm-3.x. Meanwhile, the options are just
there for backwards compatibility. However, I've noticed that the
old options are still used in the man page. I'll change that in a
minute.

fvwm3? Coooool. I am using fvwm since the early beginnings in 1993.

The key phrase is "*IF* it ever came to". That is how rumours start!

i'd watch mvwm - there's good progress there! and my config file for
fvwm still works with it.

Michael