Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:27:15 -0400 From: "John D. Hendrickson" <johnandsara2@cox.net> To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: Motif 2.0 - 2.2 with panner working nice + automake %100 complete Message-ID: <552C9723.3070403@cox.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://sourceforge.net/projects/motif250/ new non-virtual panner (old virtual one was removed before 2.1+ release) NEW pan with keys (no panner GUI) NEW drag single windows pans better than gnome grid panner or (xrandr/X11 virtual) ? far as i can remember yes. %100 complete automake ./configure - ready to remake project (ie, running libtool does not break it) , and demos are not broken :) panner is also %100 optional. should be CDE compatible or is easily so. yes works with X virtual desktop too. code was not mangled to add panner: no new files, just a new function placed back in, a few adjustments to panner. but there's new motif !? yes but motif 2.3.4 does not support 2.1.30 applications anymore (ie, perhaps and older ddd bin). for libXm.so.2.0 still need motif-2.2 around (especially if they continue to hack in (more) non-compat changes in Motif 2.3+) Non-Virtual panner is a small function that would work with about any window manager ever made, if placed into a callback for that wm, and panner(1) is just a widget which is a UI for using it. is %99 X11, just has to listen to X for a message for panner calling, is all. I could be wrong about new gnome still being stuck with full page only / grid panner. Sure it's a greedy app plug however: I thought it's worth meantioning because 1) easy to compile Motif anyone needs that 2) non-virtual panner could be added to enhance any wm project pretty quick 3) non buggy, and size is not related to video memory - even less so than fvwm 4) xrandr like X11R6 Virtual i believe eats video memory and is limited by hardware (same code base), has no GUI i heard of yet , and many are dumping hardware problems getting it to work and or restricted to area. that is what i understand so far. xrandr --panning 1600x1280 is still very small. 6000x4000 would be small for fvwm :) especially for people like me with no infinite government budget !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?552C9723.3070403>