Re: cwm tiling
Penned by Thomas Pfaff on 20120610 4:35.00, we have: | On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:23:42 -0500 | Todd T. Fries t...@fries.net wrote: | Penned by Mike Belopuhov on 20120609 6:17.29, we have: | | On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org | | wrote: | | personally, I do see benefit to having your diff or something like it with | | commands which can be bound that rearrange windows into certain layouts | | on-demand (though I think vtile would be a lot more useful than htile to | | many people with restricted vertical space ;) | | | | but I think that's far enough; to get cwm to work as a full-time tiling | | WM with window rearranging taking place all the time is going to need | | various hacks which just seem at odds with the basic design of cwm. | | On the tiling thread, so long as tiling is contained behind non default | options and not seen otherwise, I don't see the harm. Yes there's more | code, but in this day and age size of the binary is not going to make a | huge difference. | | I'm not worried about the size of the binary, I'm more worried about | the number of lines of code this will end up adding; soon enough people | will send patches for this and that to suit their tiling needs. Once | you go down that road ... You missed the rest of my email, but the sentiment remains the same. Let those that wish to hack on tiling have a playpen to work in that is not effecting the rest of us. Why not let tiling take on a life of its own especially if it is an optional disabled-by-default part of cwm? Is there reason not to promote new development? Best possible outcome would be a spectrwm compat mode to cwm, with perhaps some options to do other manners of tiling as well. I could honestly see myself using the ability to shuffle all windows in a desktop into a cascade manner briefly if only to identify what all is going on. I could also use a layout shuffling function to (given space) move all windows on a given desktop into a visible spot, without adjusting the size of a given window. My dream would be the ability to utilize cwm simplicity with the 3d GL API and do some true 3d style windows management where it is more like navigating the universe to get to all the open windows versus a limited single plane of existence with z ordering. That's a bit outside the scope of tiling, yet it shows one could have fun and extend existing functionality. Thanks, -- Todd Fries .. t...@fries.net _ | \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice) | Free Daemon Consulting, LLC \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice) | http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX) | 2525 NW Expy #525, Oklahoma City, OK 73112 \ sip:freedae...@ekiga.net | ..in support of free software solutions. \ sip:4052279...@ekiga.net \\ 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt
Re: cwm tiling
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:23:42 -0500 Todd T. Fries t...@fries.net wrote: Penned by Mike Belopuhov on 20120609 6:17.29, we have: | On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org | wrote: | personally, I do see benefit to having your diff or something like it with | commands which can be bound that rearrange windows into certain layouts | on-demand (though I think vtile would be a lot more useful than htile to | many people with restricted vertical space ;) | | but I think that's far enough; to get cwm to work as a full-time tiling | WM with window rearranging taking place all the time is going to need | various hacks which just seem at odds with the basic design of cwm. On the tiling thread, so long as tiling is contained behind non default options and not seen otherwise, I don't see the harm. Yes there's more code, but in this day and age size of the binary is not going to make a huge difference. I'm not worried about the size of the binary, I'm more worried about the number of lines of code this will end up adding; soon enough people will send patches for this and that to suit their tiling needs. Once you go down that road ...
Re: cwm tiling
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:17:29 +0200
Mike Belopuhov m...@crypt.org.ru wrote:
currently users have to point
the mouse cursor to where they want a new window to be created.
otherwise the whole thing quickly turns into a mess of overlapped
windows in the center of the screen.
This annoyed me too a while back because I open and close a bunch
of xterms and unless I jerk the mouse first they'd all overlap.
x=$(jot -r 1 0 XMAX)
y=$(jot -r 1 0 YMAX)
xterm -geometry 80x25+${x}+${y}
as a wrapper solved it. Sure, this is only one program but the
other programs I open tend to stay open until I log out.
A knob to modify how new windows are placed could be useful,
but that's for another thread.
Re: cwm tiling
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 10:21:43PM -0500, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert christiano...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2012 9:22 PM, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas jca+o...@wxcvbn.org wrote: Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org writes: I for one would love cwm to have tiling management. I don't care avout the alternative, they are not in base. Same here. I might migrate to cwm just for the tilling. -- J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas GPG fingerprint: 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494 +1 for tiling in base... +1 -- -=[rpe]=-
Re: cwm tiling
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 09:07:13PM +0400, Alexander Polakov wrote: I'd like to start a discussion about adding tiling to cwm with these two diffs. How hard can it be to import spectrwm... You're reinventing the wheel here, badly.
Re: cwm tiling
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 08:30:59AM +0200, robert wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 10:21:43PM -0500, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert christiano...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2012 9:22 PM, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas jca+o...@wxcvbn.org wrote: Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org writes: I for one would love cwm to have tiling management. I don't care avout the alternative, they are not in base. Same here. I might migrate to cwm just for the tilling. -- J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas GPG fingerprint: 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494 +1 for tiling in base... +1 I'm not using tiling anymore. But I did for 2 years and would love to have this in base. I don't care if it's cwm or some other crap wm. So +1
Re: cwm tiling
* Tobias Ulmer tobi...@tmux.org [120609 11:32]: On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 09:07:13PM +0400, Alexander Polakov wrote: I'd like to start a discussion about adding tiling to cwm with these two diffs. How hard can it be to import spectrwm... You're reinventing the wheel here, badly. No, I am not. I'm reimplementing the wheel. -- Alexander Polakov | plhk.ru
Re: cwm tiling
+1 On Jun 9, 2012 5:46 AM, Christiano F. Haesbaert christiano...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2012 9:22 PM, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas jca+o...@wxcvbn.org wrote: Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org writes: I for one would love cwm to have tiling management. I don't care avout the alternative, they are not in base. Same here. I might migrate to cwm just for the tilling. -- Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas GPG fingerprint: 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494
Re: cwm tiling
* Thomas Pfaff tpf...@tp76.info [120608 23:06]: On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:57:35 -0400 Okan Demirmen o...@demirmen.com wrote: On Fri 2012.06.08 at 19:40 +0200, Thomas Pfaff wrote: On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:07:13 +0400 Alexander Polakov p...@sdf.org wrote: I'd like to start a discussion about adding tiling to cwm with these two diffs. I don't want it ;-) If I wanted a tiling window manager I'd install one of the many already available. Please keep cwm clean and simple, as it is. It's not being dropped as an idea at all. Defaults will not change however. Doing this means more code (more now and definitely more to come), more documentation, more configuration options, more to learn, more more more. It adds about hundred lines of code and one binding now. You are not obliged to learn and use every possible keyboard binding, are you? I appreciate that the defaults would stay the same, but really, what is the point in doing this? cwm can't be everything to everyone. The point is: when you want tiling from time to time, it's impractical to switch to a tiling window manager. -- Alexander Polakov | plhk.ru
Re: cwm tiling
On 2012/06/09 14:09, Alexander Polakov wrote: I appreciate that the defaults would stay the same, but really, what is the point in doing this? cwm can't be everything to everyone. The point is: when you want tiling from time to time, it's impractical to switch to a tiling window manager. the basic tiling isn't really a problem but tiling WMs need various hacks to cope with the many programs that just *don't work* with them. part of this is to cope with window layouts which are stupid when they're tiled, part of it to cope with programs that plain don't like having their windows resized on them immediately when they're created. personally, I do see benefit to having your diff or something like it with commands which can be bound that rearrange windows into certain layouts on-demand (though I think vtile would be a lot more useful than htile to many people with restricted vertical space ;) but I think that's far enough; to get cwm to work as a full-time tiling WM with window rearranging taking place all the time is going to need various hacks which just seem at odds with the basic design of cwm. I'd be keen for cwm not to end up with code like this setquirk(MPlayer, xv, SWM_Q_FLOAT | SWM_Q_FULLSCREEN | SWM_Q_FOCUSPREV); setquirk(OpenOffice.org 3.2, VCLSalFrame, SWM_Q_FLOAT); setquirk(Firefox-bin, firefox-bin, SWM_Q_TRANSSZ); setquirk(Firefox, Dialog, SWM_Q_FLOAT); setquirk(Gimp,gimp, SWM_Q_FLOAT | SWM_Q_ANYWHERE); setquirk(XTerm, xterm,SWM_Q_XTERM_FONTADJ); setquirk(xine,Xine Window, SWM_Q_FLOAT | SWM_Q_ANYWHERE); setquirk(Xitk,Xitk Combo, SWM_Q_FLOAT | SWM_Q_ANYWHERE); setquirk(xine,xine Panel, SWM_Q_FLOAT | SWM_Q_ANYWHERE); setquirk(Xitk,Xine Window, SWM_Q_FLOAT | SWM_Q_ANYWHERE); setquirk(xine,xine Video Fullscreen Window, SWM_Q_FULLSCREEN | SWM_Q_FLOAT); setquirk(pcb, pcb, SWM_Q_FLOAT); setquirk(SDL_App, SDL_App, SWM_Q_FLOAT | SWM_Q_FULLSCREEN); so +1 for manually-triggered auto rearranging, -1 for turning cwm into something which (dwm|ion|spectrwm|awesome|wmii|xmonad|...) already cater for.
Re: cwm tiling
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote: On 2012/06/09 14:09, Alexander Polakov wrote: I appreciate that the defaults would stay the same, but really, what is the point in doing this? cwm can't be everything to everyone. The point is: when you want tiling from time to time, it's impractical to switch to a tiling window manager. the basic tiling isn't really a problem but tiling WMs need various hacks to cope with the many programs that just *don't work* with them. part of this is to cope with window layouts which are stupid when they're tiled, part of it to cope with programs that plain don't like having their windows resized on them immediately when they're created. personally, I do see benefit to having your diff or something like it with commands which can be bound that rearrange windows into certain layouts on-demand (though I think vtile would be a lot more useful than htile to many people with restricted vertical space ;) but I think that's far enough; to get cwm to work as a full-time tiling WM with window rearranging taking place all the time is going to need various hacks which just seem at odds with the basic design of cwm. so +1 for manually-triggered auto rearranging, -1 for turning cwm into something which (dwm|ion|spectrwm|awesome|wmii|xmonad|...) already cater for. in my very humble opinion what cwm really needs is a nice minimum overlap window placement algorithm. currently users have to point the mouse cursor to where they want a new window to be created. otherwise the whole thing quickly turns into a mess of overlapped windows in the center of the screen.
Re: cwm tiling
On 2012 Jun 09 (Sat) at 13:17:29 +0200 (+0200), Mike Belopuhov wrote: :On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org :wrote: : On 2012/06/09 14:09, Alexander Polakov wrote: : I appreciate that the defaults would stay the same, but really, : what is the point in doing this? cwm can't be everything to : everyone. : : The point is: when you want tiling from time to time, it's impractical : to switch to a tiling window manager. : : the basic tiling isn't really a problem but tiling WMs need various : hacks to cope with the many programs that just *don't work* with them. : : part of this is to cope with window layouts which are stupid when : they're tiled, part of it to cope with programs that plain don't like : having their windows resized on them immediately when they're created. : : personally, I do see benefit to having your diff or something like it with : commands which can be bound that rearrange windows into certain layouts : on-demand (though I think vtile would be a lot more useful than htile to : many people with restricted vertical space ;) : : but I think that's far enough; to get cwm to work as a full-time tiling : WM with window rearranging taking place all the time is going to need : various hacks which just seem at odds with the basic design of cwm. : : : so +1 for manually-triggered auto rearranging, -1 for turning cwm into : something which (dwm|ion|spectrwm|awesome|wmii|xmonad|...) already cater :for. : : :in my very humble opinion what cwm really needs is a nice minimum :overlap window placement algorithm. currently users have to point :the mouse cursor to where they want a new window to be created. :otherwise the whole thing quickly turns into a mess of overlapped :windows in the center of the screen. : ...which is exactly the behaviour I like. -- Experience is what you get when you were expecting something else.
Re: cwm tiling
I agree completley with you. Being able to tile just a given virtual desktop and leave the others intact would be pretty awesome. Turning it into a full blown tiling wm isn't what's being proposed from what I understand.
Re: cwm tiling
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 02:26:04PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: I agree completley with you. Being able to tile just a given virtual desktop and leave the others intact would be pretty awesome. Turning it into a full blown tiling wm isn't what's being proposed from what I understand. An idea is a flavored package named something like cwm-tile (or whatever) and into the precompiled packages. Everyone's happy. -- Do not use my email to mass forward chain mails. [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: cwm tiling
On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 14:26 +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: I agree completley with you. Being able to tile just a given virtual desktop and leave the others intact would be pretty awesome. Except they aren't desktops. Desktops are exclusively selected, cwm groups aren't (necessarily), and have a z index based on last selection. How (eg) xmonad handles tags is a better basis for multi-desktop tiling than how cwm handles groups. Weldon
Re: cwm tiling
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Weldon Goree wel...@b.rontosaur.us wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 14:26 +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: I agree completley with you. Being able to tile just a given virtual desktop and leave the others intact would be pretty awesome. Except they aren't desktops. Desktops are exclusively selected, cwm groups aren't (necessarily), and have a z index based on last selection. How (eg) xmonad handles tags is a better basis for multi-desktop tiling than how cwm handles groups. Weldon +1, but I wouldn't like the tiling behavior by default though, ever. 2 reasons: 1 - author didn't intend it - it might lead old or current users feel like its not the same cwm 2 - In my personal experience the windows that I want tiled are never closed, so I like manually setting the tiling property. Current diff to implement tiling meet the above conditions, so I like it!
Re: cwm tiling
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Tobias Ulmer tobi...@tmux.org wrote: On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 09:07:13PM +0400, Alexander Polakov wrote: I'd like to start a discussion about adding tiling to cwm with these two diffs. How hard can it be to import spectrwm... You're reinventing the wheel here, badly. spectrwm is full of bugs... or I'm unable to use it well with mplayer -vo sdl ...
Re: cwm tiling
Penned by Mike Belopuhov on 20120609 6:17.29, we have: | On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org | wrote: | On 2012/06/09 14:09, Alexander Polakov wrote: | I appreciate that the defaults would stay the same, but really, | what is the point in doing this? ?cwm can't be everything to | everyone. | | The point is: when you want tiling from time to time, it's impractical | to switch to a tiling window manager. | | the basic tiling isn't really a problem but tiling WMs need various | hacks to cope with the many programs that just *don't work* with them. | | part of this is to cope with window layouts which are stupid when | they're tiled, part of it to cope with programs that plain don't like | having their windows resized on them immediately when they're created. | | personally, I do see benefit to having your diff or something like it with | commands which can be bound that rearrange windows into certain layouts | on-demand (though I think vtile would be a lot more useful than htile to | many people with restricted vertical space ;) | | but I think that's far enough; to get cwm to work as a full-time tiling | WM with window rearranging taking place all the time is going to need | various hacks which just seem at odds with the basic design of cwm. | | | so +1 for manually-triggered auto rearranging, -1 for turning cwm into | something which (dwm|ion|spectrwm|awesome|wmii|xmonad|...) already cater | for. | | | in my very humble opinion what cwm really needs is a nice minimum | overlap window placement algorithm. currently users have to point | the mouse cursor to where they want a new window to be created. | otherwise the whole thing quickly turns into a mess of overlapped | windows in the center of the screen. Given that cwm was started as a plan9 wm alike, and you'd draw the xterm you wanted to open with the pointer, I think this is counter intuitive to the current default behavior of cwm. However, I'd be all for permitting a knob to change this behavior from the default. On the tiling thread, so long as tiling is contained behind non default options and not seen otherwise, I don't see the harm. Yes there's more code, but in this day and age size of the binary is not going to make a huge difference. Code that is self contained behind knobs that are not enabled by default seems quite sufficiently separated that there should not be any issue (or it is not self contained, and will be readily corrected). The point about switching wm's is rather to the heart of the matter. If one wanted tiling only, one would use spectrwm. If one wanted non tiling only, one can use cwm. If one wants a combination, one must create the diff that created this thread. Please commit, ok todd@! Thanks, -- Todd Fries .. t...@fries.net _ | \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice) | Free Daemon Consulting, LLC \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice) | http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX) | 2525 NW Expy #525, Oklahoma City, OK 73112 \ sip:freedae...@ekiga.net | ..in support of free software solutions. \ sip:4052279...@ekiga.net \\ 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt
Re: cwm tiling
On Fri 2012.06.08 at 19:40 +0200, Thomas Pfaff wrote: On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:07:13 +0400 Alexander Polakov p...@sdf.org wrote: I'd like to start a discussion about adding tiling to cwm with these two diffs. I don't want it ;-) If I wanted a tiling window manager I'd install one of the many already available. Please keep cwm clean and simple, as it is. It's not being dropped as an idea at all. Defaults will not change however.
Re: cwm tiling
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:57:35 -0400 Okan Demirmen o...@demirmen.com wrote: On Fri 2012.06.08 at 19:40 +0200, Thomas Pfaff wrote: On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:07:13 +0400 Alexander Polakov p...@sdf.org wrote: I'd like to start a discussion about adding tiling to cwm with these two diffs. I don't want it ;-) If I wanted a tiling window manager I'd install one of the many already available. Please keep cwm clean and simple, as it is. It's not being dropped as an idea at all. Defaults will not change however. Doing this means more code (more now and definitely more to come), more documentation, more configuration options, more to learn, more more more. I appreciate that the defaults would stay the same, but really, what is the point in doing this? cwm can't be everything to everyone.
Re: cwm tiling
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:40:38PM +0200, Thomas Pfaff wrote: On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:07:13 +0400 Alexander Polakov p...@sdf.org wrote: I'd like to start a discussion about adding tiling to cwm with these two diffs. I don't want it ;-) If I wanted a tiling window manager I'd install one of the many already available. Please keep cwm clean and simple, as it is. I for one would love cwm to have tiling management. I don't care avout the alternative, they are not in base. -- Antoine
Re: cwm tiling
Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org writes: I for one would love cwm to have tiling management. I don't care avout the alternative, they are not in base. Same here. -- Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas GPG fingerprint: 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494
Re: cwm tiling
On Jun 8, 2012 9:22 PM, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas jca+o...@wxcvbn.org wrote: Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org writes: I for one would love cwm to have tiling management. I don't care avout the alternative, they are not in base. Same here. I might migrate to cwm just for the tilling. -- Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas GPG fingerprint: 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494
Re: cwm tiling
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert christiano...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2012 9:22 PM, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas jca+o...@wxcvbn.org wrote: Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org writes: I for one would love cwm to have tiling management. I don't care avout the alternative, they are not in base. Same here. I might migrate to cwm just for the tilling. -- Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas GPG fingerprint: 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494 +1 for tiling in base...
