fvwm95 was a fork of fvwm2 and has remained in that state, and never updated.

It was created at a time when the theming in fvwm was not as flexible, but it's completely possible to emulate all of fvwm95 in fvwm3, and behind the scenes, the application support in fvwm3 greatly outweighs the version of fvwm2 which fvwm95 wad forked from.

In other words, it remains a curio in fvwm's history, and that's where it should remain.

It's not the "difficulty" it's the fact that the technologies are completely different.

See: https://gist.github.com/ThomasAdam/5377540b3025f7f04735d96ee...

True -- but then, FvwmButtons was never meant to compete with systray stuff, the original spec came via EWMH for that. and didn't really affect FvwmButtons' raison d'être.

I wouldn't have said this is anything new.

FreeBSD has libxo[0] integrated into some of its tools:

[0] https://github.com/Juniper/libxo

Except they went with --libxo command-line option, which is extremely unlikely to cause any problems in the existing scripts.

There's still time for you to learn...

Yes -- same with CPP as well. Fvwm2 allowed you to use the language features of M4/CPP to hold variables and to perform loops on different data, so you could generate complex config files that way, without needing to build that into the core config syntax itself.

However, in fvwm3, I've removed both those modules.

There's nothing stopping you using FVWM or XFCE on newer hardware either.

You'd be surprised at just how popular this is still. I think people appreciate the flexibility, even if that means things being on their terms.

Plenty of applications still operate with text files (just look at emacs/vim) and the people that use those have no problems editing text files.