On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 18:51:34 +0000, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 04:31:52PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > > I fail to understand the need to have a window that is > > focused but unusable because it is covered. > > You are assuming that the window is entirely covered. This is not how I > use Blackbox. One of the systems I use is a laptop with a 1024x480 > display. This means that I frequently have windows overlapping. In > many cases, I will position two windows so that I can read the > information in one and type into the other. This normally means that > the window I'm reading from is unfocused, but topmost, and that the > window I am typing in is focused, but not topmost. If I understand > your statement about netwm's "window activation", this would no longer > be possible. Thus, I would not be able to use a window manager that > worked this way.
I also frequently use this feature, if you could call it that. Removing it would severely frustrate me at times, I suspect. > > If you look at window switching > > on other operating systems and other wms in unix land you will see that > > raising is common practice. > > Which is one of many reasons I ended up using Blackbox, because it did > not operate this way. While my primary reason for starting to use Blackbox in the first place was it's small size, this feature is something I've gotten used to. I would miss it a lot if it went away, and I'd probably stick to a version where it works. > > Is it really that hard to live with? > > I believe my above statements address this. However, just to be clear, > yes it would be that hard to live with. I concur. -- vrak AKA Per-Arne Holtmon Ak� E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HP: http://home.online.no/~perarneh/ GPG Fingerprint: D734 9472 ACA1 0799 AFE2 1601 021F E4E9 5F21 820B
msg00112/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
