Re: [dwm] dwm-4.8 / dmenu-3.5 / slock-0.8
On 3/14/08, Ralph E. Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I hope someone updates bottomstack for 4.8. Ideally, I want to cycle:
vertical/horizontal/monocle.
you don't need patch for that anymore, just edit config.h
use a setgeom like
bottomstackgeoms(void) {
/* screen dimensions */
sx = 0;
sy = 0;
sw = DisplayWidth(dpy, screen);
sh = DisplayHeight(dpy, screen);
/* bar position */
bx = sx;
by = sy;
bw = sw;
bh = dc.font.height + 2;
/* window area */
wx = sx;
wy = sy + bh;
ww = sw;
wh = sh - bh;
/* master area */
mx = wx;
my = wy;
mw = ww;
mh = 0.6 * wh;
/* tile area */
tx = mx;
ty = my + mh;
tw = ww;
th = wh - mh;
/* monocle area */
mox = wx;
moy = wy;
mow = ww;
moh = wh;
}
with tileh (or tilev)
Re: [dwm] dwm-4.8 / dmenu-3.5 / slock-0.8
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:22:41 -0400 Ralph E. Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pancake- Togglebar and mwfact are essential, and they are working great. Thanks. Also, I like your color scheme too; I might keep it. Thanks! The default blue looks too hard for my eyes =), btw I'm pretty sure the mwfact and togglebar codes can be enhaced, but they are functional, and this is just what I need. I have more ideas to do and patches to port. I'll feed the ml. When there is only one window, and togglebar removes the bar, a gap remains. If the window is floating, it doesn't move, and a gap is left where the bar was removed. If it isn't floating, the window moves up, creating a gap at the bottom. (The window is not resizing following the removal of the bar.) With two or more windows open, they resize, leaving no gap. I don't fixed that problem because it is a dwm bug I notified in some previous mails. I don't care about pixel-up / pixel-down problems atm. I update my config. take a look on it :) http://news.nopcode.org/dwm/config.h --pancake
Re: [dwm] still simplicity or featureitis?
the floating mode flag in the layout is a bit ugly Well, if you have a better proposal for 4.9, let me know. I like ~ as a floating layout flag ... -- Damjan Vrenčur ~ http://lmmri.fri.uni-lj.si/damjan/ ~ GPG key: C6A3146F
Re: [dwm] still simplicity or featureitis?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 01:33:28PM +0100, Damjan Vrencur wrote: the floating mode flag in the layout is a bit ugly Well, if you have a better proposal for 4.9, let me know. I like ~ as a floating layout flag ... Well, the layout symbol is up to the user anyways ;) Questionable was/is the Layout-isfloating field. But I think that's kind of consistent to the rest of the code. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] dwm-4.8 / dmenu-3.5 / slock-0.8
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:04:00 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dwm@suckless.org
Subject: Re: [dwm] dwm-4.8 / dmenu-3.5 / slock-0.8
On 3/14/08, Ralph E. Carter wrote:
Now I hope someone updates bottomstack for 4.8. Ideally, I want to cycle:
vertical/horizontal/monocle.
you don't need patch for that anymore, just edit config.h
use a setgeom like
bottomstackgeoms(void) {
/* screen dimensions */
sx = 0;
sy = 0;
sw = DisplayWidth(dpy, screen);
sh = DisplayHeight(dpy, screen);
/* bar position */
bx = sx;
by = sy;
bw = sw;
bh = dc.font.height + 2;
/* window area */
wx = sx;
wy = sy + bh;
ww = sw;
wh = sh - bh;
/* master area */
mx = wx;
my = wy;
mw = ww;
mh = 0.6 * wh;
/* tile area */
tx = mx;
ty = my + mh;
tw = ww;
th = wh - mh;
/* monocle area */
mox = wx;
moy = wy;
mow = ww;
moh = wh;
}
with tileh (or tilev)
Thank you.
Using config.anselm.h as a model of how to plug it in, the above
worked perfectly on the first try.
I am happy with this vertical/horizontal/monocle behavior.
_
Enter the Zune-A-Day Giveaway for your chance to win — day after day after day
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-USocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V1
Re: [dwm] still simplicity or featureitis?
Actually 4.7 has been for me feature complete and subjectively bug free. In 4.8 there are new things for which I am unable to imagine a scenario of use (both monocle and vertical tile) and one thing which I miss (the possibility to toggle the bar). But this is not a real problem for me, vanilla dwm-4.7 is actually quite the perfect wm for me, there is no improvement I can think of, so I will simply stay with it indefinitely. -- Giorgio Lando patroclo7 at gmail dot com
Re: [dwm] still simplicity or featureitis?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 01:56:58PM +0100, Giorgio Lando wrote: Actually 4.7 has been for me feature complete and subjectively bug free. In 4.8 there are new things for which I am unable to imagine a scenario of use (both monocle and vertical tile) and one thing which I miss (the possibility to toggle the bar). But this is not a real problem for me, vanilla dwm-4.7 is actually quite the perfect wm for me, there is no improvement I can think of, so I will simply stay with it indefinitely. Well development is going on and there are chances that some general screen geometry manipulation functions will appear in mainstream dwm which replace setmwfact and togglebar. For now I decided against such an attempt, because I'm curios about what people come up with. Kind regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe http://www.suckless.org/ GPG key: 0D73F361
Re: [dwm] still simplicity or featureitis?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 02:07:55PM +0100, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 01:56:58PM +0100, Giorgio Lando wrote: Actually 4.7 has been for me feature complete and subjectively bug free. In 4.8 there are new things for which I am unable to imagine a scenario of use (both monocle and vertical tile) and one thing which I miss (the possibility to toggle the bar). But this is not a real problem for me, vanilla dwm-4.7 is actually quite the perfect wm for me, there is no improvement I can think of, so I will simply stay with it indefinitely. Well development is going on and there are chances that some general screen geometry manipulation functions will appear in mainstream dwm which replace setmwfact and togglebar. For now I decided against such an attempt, because I'm curios about what people come up with. at least with a please keep/restore both :-). `togglebar` mainly to have a real full screen presentation mode, `mwfact' since it _never_ will be right all the time for all users if hardcoded. the latter (having `mwfact') seems quite important to me. I like especially the ease of use. cf., e.g., with `ion3' where such adjustments are quite a pain in the back (first activate resize; than adjust all 4 borders if you like -- achieving the simple equivalent of `mwfact' takes much more time/effort). of course if you think of completely different strategies to manipulate the geometry (instead of removing the ability to do so), forget immediately what I've said (apart from: keep ease of use). and contrary to the initial post I'd say `monocle' is very useful indeed. but 'vertical tile' does not make sense, at least not on a single monitor, not for me in any case. (by- the-by, if 'vertical' is the 'new' tile and 'horizontal' is the standard tile, I'd say the names are swapped: in the standard tile the windows are vertically tiled one above the other, so why is this the 'horizontal tiling' ...) joerg
Re: [dwm] still simplicity or featureitis?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:26:21 +0100 Joerg van den Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and contrary to the initial post I'd say `monocle' is very useful indeed. but 'vertical tile' does not make sense, at least not on a single monitor, not for me in any case. (by- the-by, if 'vertical' is the 'new' tile and 'horizontal' is the standard tile, I'd say the names are swapped: in the standard tile the windows are vertically tiled one above the other, so why is this the 'horizontal tiling' ...) why not implement a master and tile area inside the tiling area? I mean...more than two vertical clients in the stack area for a single monitor (and most of the dual screen uses) will go. This is my idea: +--+---++ | | || | | || | | || +--+---++ Splitting this in two monitors can become into a two nice possibilities: +--+ +---+ | || | | | || |---| | || | | +--+ +---+ or just a master in the first screen and a 'dwm like tile' in the second. This concept is somewhat a dwm layout inside a dwm layout and don't know if this is a good idea, or it needs more flexibility, but it fits very well with the ideas in 4.8. The nmaster for more than two clients in the master area is useless, so we can just implement a two-client tile in master area as another layout. What I really miss is the cpt patch :) Anselm: what do you think about this idea? --pancake
Re: [dwm] still simplicity or featureitis?
I like the new changes, the code is more dynamic yet not really any larger or complex. If you find it unstable, us an older version until you think it is stable? Especially if you say it it was already feature complete. On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:42 AM, pancake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:26:21 +0100 Joerg van den Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and contrary to the initial post I'd say `monocle' is very useful indeed. but 'vertical tile' does not make sense, at least not on a single monitor, not for me in any case. (by- the-by, if 'vertical' is the 'new' tile and 'horizontal' is the standard tile, I'd say the names are swapped: in the standard tile the windows are vertically tiled one above the other, so why is this the 'horizontal tiling' ...) why not implement a master and tile area inside the tiling area? I mean...more than two vertical clients in the stack area for a single monitor (and most of the dual screen uses) will go. This is my idea: +--+---++ | | || | | || | | || +--+---++ Splitting this in two monitors can become into a two nice possibilities: +--+ +---+ | || | | | || |---| | || | | +--+ +---+ or just a master in the first screen and a 'dwm like tile' in the second. This concept is somewhat a dwm layout inside a dwm layout and don't know if this is a good idea, or it needs more flexibility, but it fits very well with the ideas in 4.8. The nmaster for more than two clients in the master area is useless, so we can just implement a two-client tile in master area as another layout. What I really miss is the cpt patch :) Anselm: what do you think about this idea? --pancake
[dwm] Different window modes on different workspaces
Hello, I have a very simple question. I just upgraded to 4.8. And I would like to know if there is a simple way to assign one workspace to be say tiled mode, and another to be float mode. I would like to use tiling on some of my workspaces, but am always pissed when I move to another desktop with a float that gets moved out of place. Thanks, Jonny
Re: [dwm] Different window modes on different workspaces
Just to comment ... this is something I was interested in as well, but never got around to hacking it in. On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Jonny Gerold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have a very simple question. I just upgraded to 4.8. And I would like to know if there is a simple way to assign one workspace to be say tiled mode, and another to be float mode. I would like to use tiling on some of my workspaces, but am always pissed when I move to another desktop with a float that gets moved out of place. Thanks, Jonny -- Brandon Barker Phone: (859) 948-5335
[dwm] Default password for diri
I was wondering what the default pass was for diri, and it says sha1 but its super long?
