> Well, that's all a matter of opinion. I'll admit I can see how these might
> be useful, but lets focus on whether or not these are bugs.
<snip>
Yes I agree. It is all a matter of opinion. My opinion is also that
they are not bugs in Blackbox; they would however be nice to have.
<snip>
> As you can see the author clearly indicates that there is no offical
> guideline for Window Managers at this time. Additionally, he clearly states
> that "window managers don't *have* to do anything". This would indicate
> that the manner in which BB handles the maximization, dialog display, window
> placement, and any other thing you can think of with regard to Xinerama is
> not a bug.
Yup, the Xinerama-HOWTO makes clear reference that the WM does not need
to support xinerama in order to use it.
I also agree that the way BB handles window placement and
maximisation is correct for a window manager that doesn't utilise
the xinerama extensions (albeit unofficial) that are available.
> IMHO, this was clear from the basic discription of what Xinerama did. That
> being making multiple physical monitors appear to X as one logical display.
> Thus if I want to maximize something, I want to maximize it. The creation
> of virtual resistance boundaries or window placement guidelines is a purely
> voluntary item.
No argument there either :) Perhaps I was a little over zealous with my
"shoulds" :p
I use blackbox+xinerama and find it annoying regarding window placement.
I lived with this for awhile now and have become used to it.
Matt
--
--------Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done--------
http://www.spinner.org.nz stick at spinner dot org dot nz
stick at rage dot net dot nz
----------------------------------------------------------------
