Tim Riley wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:08:24AM -0400, Scott Furt wrote:
The whole linux philosophy is to give configurability, even
at the cost of being a bit cryptic at times. :-)
Is that so? What about the 'usability' philosophy? ;)
For me, the configurability helps make it
On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off after the resize).
However, if I maximize the window, then MOVE it, maximization is not turned
off. For consistency sake,
Opaque resizing would be really cool...
That would be horribly slow, as the app's contents would have to be
redrawn constantly.. With a move, they dont change, in a resize, they
do.
yeah, opaque resizing is a serious bitch to get right.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 11:45:53PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off after the resize).
However, if I maximize the window,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:08:11AM -0400, Derek Cunningham wrote:
On Wed, Jun05,02 23:45, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 08:51:39AM -0500, xOr wrote:
I see no reason why I would want to move a maxmimized window, as moving it
puts some of the windows off screen. I propose that maximized windows should
not be moveable (config option?).
There is no way that would fly for a large number
On Thu, Jun06,02 08:55, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:08:11 -0400
Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see no reason why I would want to move a maxmimized window, as moving
it puts some of the windows off screen. I propose that maximized windows
should not be
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
Imho, for this sort of bog standard window behaviour, a sane default
should be picked, and kept. Otherwise (that is, after feature freeze), we
might get config item creep!
I,
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
Imho, for this sort of bog standard window behaviour, a sane default
should be picked, and kept. Otherwise (that is,
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:41:12 -0500
xOr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
I, for one, see no problem with this config item
creep. :) They add enormous amounts of flexibility, at
I think I have to agree with Tim on this, at least to a
certain extent. As a semi-geek, I rely on my hubbie to get
me through complex installs and I'm convinced that he would
be less than appreciative if I could not even install my own
window manager without help. =) Personally, I'd rather
Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
Imho, for this sort of bog standard window behaviour, a sane default
should be picked, and kept.
hmm... I guess my complaint isn't so much about getting it back to it's
original place... but more about consistency. I really like the ideal of
having fully maximized windows unable to move, but I'll leave that up to you
guys to decide :).
this consistency is not shared by any of the
On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
On Thu, Jun06,02 11:38, Chris Grossmann wrote:
Derek Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
Yeah... further to this, to whom to we cater? The users, or the power
users?
The featureists, or the minimalists?
The authors. :)
Maybe... but I
You're absolutely right, Derek.
I credit Sean and Brad with all that they do (and have
done).
I use blackbox because it is lean and fast, and when a new
version comes out, it is leaner and faster.
Most of the features/configurations I could really care less
about, but I'll say this: I'd
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 12:03:57PM -0400, Chris Grossmann wrote:
You're absolutely right, Derek.
I credit Sean and Brad with all that they do (and have
done).
I use blackbox because it is lean and fast, and when a new
version comes out, it is leaner and faster.
Most of the
Heh, a configuration option is never going to be the bottle neck of the
window manager. With blackbox, the bottleneck is the image rendering
code, as fast as it is. :)
true. However, every option is roughly 20 lines of code. Plus a little more
memory as we store the option, some state,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:08:24AM -0400, Scott Furt wrote:
The whole linux philosophy is to give configurability, even
at the cost of being a bit cryptic at times. :-)
Is that so? What about the 'usability' philosophy? ;)
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:41:12AM -0500, xOr wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
It just seems that some of the proposed config options are so obtuse and
subtle that the average man on the free unix might not understand it. For
Heh, are you, by chance, a
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:24:54 +0930 Tim Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:08:24AM -0400, Scott Furt wrote:
The whole linux philosophy is to give configurability, even
at the cost of being a bit cryptic at times. :-)
Is that so? What about the 'usability' philosophy?
Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off after the resize).
However, if I maximize the window, then MOVE it, maximization is not turned
off. For consistency sake, wouldn't that be a good idea... it also seems
ok... another thought. Would it be desired to have resizing snap to the
screen (well, the struct) edges?
agreed, that would make a lot of sense (not to mention be very useful)
also, how about opaque resizing, like opaque moving?
Matt.
On Thu, Jun06,02 17:50, Matt Wilson wrote:
ok... another thought. Would it be desired to have resizing snap to the
screen (well, the struct) edges?
agreed, that would make a lot of sense (not to mention be very useful)
also, how about opaque resizing, like opaque moving?
Matt.
That
23 matches
Mail list logo
