Well, I am not a master of anything around here, but I can only think that he just doesn’t have the reason because an informed developer would speak with facts and bits of code, and not with allusions at how bad, evil and arrogant the fvwm people are… Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t like that kind of attitude.
He claims that fvwm refuses to comply with the freedesktop standard. However, freedesktop people don’t think the same, because they list fvwm as one of the compliant wm’s on their own web:
freedesktop.org/wiki/Specificati … %2Fwm-spec
Maybe, only maybe, it could be more productive if both parts sit down and find the true problem. The fact that most wm’s work ok with audacious or xmms, don’t necessarily mean that audacious devs are right. Remember: a few centuries ago most people used to think that the people was flat, and it certainly is not. I am not stating that the problem is in audacious. I am just saying that it’s what it seems looking at the big picture.
I really think the Pitcock behavior is not acceptable, but maybe there’s something that I don’t know. In that case, he should also have provided links and proofs about all the claims he makes, about how bad fvwm devs are, and how compliant about net_wm they (the audacious devs) are.
If you are really interested, we should continue the discussion at the workers mailing list as Thomas Adam suggested in hist post above. That’s the official place that the fvwm developers use for this kind of thing. That would be more productive. Adding “workarounds” have never been the fvwm way. If it’s broken, then it must be fixed, and not worked around. And it must be fixed where the problem is. If the problem is in fvwm, then it should be fixed in fvwm. If the problem is not in fvwm, it should never be worked around in fvwm. If the application is net_wm compliant, and fvwm is net_wm compliant, then there shouldn’t be a problem. I really don’t know how compliant fvwm is in that regard, and any fvwm dev will give us a better insight about that.