Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Hi, It was a long time ago. I just loooked at the code. I think it should work with a few changes. I do not use these layouts anymore. I first began with wmii, then dwm. I, of course, missed the wmii ``capabilities so I wrote dwmii.c. But, with time, I realized that moving the windows from column to column with the keyboard is a waste of time. Also, thinking of where a given window has to go is a waste of my little-brain time. So now I use now the tile() layout of dwm with my patch movie.c and I can work without thinking of where to put windows. But if I can help to make dwmii.c work with the current version of dwm.c and if I have time tell me. Guillaume Quintin.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 01/08/2012 10:30 AM, John Matthewman wrote: I would like a window manager that has wmii's acme-like window management, but without the 9P filesystem, wmiir, support for configuration via python, ruby, etc. use dwm as a base to build upon +1 I imagine having a stacked layout + manual layouting in dwm should do basically everything I need in everyday work. Plus a sleek code base. There are a few other things that are now implemented through the configuration *dirty* like toggling the last tag, namespaces for tags, ... but that could be patched separately, if necessary. Quintin Guillaume posted a patch providing a wmii-like layout for dwm a while ago [1]. I doubt that it applies to current dwm as it probably is from the pre-Xinerama era of dwm, but it may be easily brought up to date. There were some updated versions of that patch, make sure to search the old d...@suckless.org mailing list archives for the latest one. [1] http://lists.suckless.org/dwm/0808/6435.html Thanks for the tip! I vaguely remember reading about that patch a long time ago. Maybe I'll see if I can get it to work -- then try to make it a bit more mouse-friendly (like acme). That sounds truly awesome! Will you let us know how it goes? Thx in advance dtk
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 1/8/12, Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com wrote: Someone could implement a stacked mode patch for dwm based on two extra windows (similar to the dwm bar) per column -- wouldn't be too hard. I would like a window manager that has wmii's acme-like window management, but without the 9P filesystem, wmiir, support for configuration via python, ruby, etc. Trim the fat off of it (or perhaps it would be better to use dwm as a base to build upon, rather than trying to deconstruct wmii?) Now if only I had the Xlib know-how - not to mention the time - to do it.. John
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 8 January 2012 10:30, John Matthewman jmatthew...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/8/12, Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com wrote: Someone could implement a stacked mode patch for dwm based on two extra windows (similar to the dwm bar) per column -- wouldn't be too hard. I would like a window manager that has wmii's acme-like window management, but without the 9P filesystem, wmiir, support for configuration via python, ruby, etc. Trim the fat off of it (or perhaps it would be better to use dwm as a base to build upon, rather than trying to deconstruct wmii?) Now if only I had the Xlib know-how - not to mention the time - to do it.. Use dwm as a starting point. It shouldn't be too hard. Cheers, Anselm
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Sun 08 Jan 2012 04:30:47 PM PST, John Matthewman wrote: I would like a window manager that has wmii's acme-like window management, but without the 9P filesystem, wmiir, support for configuration via python, ruby, etc. Try i3, which was inspired by wmii: http://i3wm.org/ -- If something has not yet gone wrong then it would ultimately have been beneficial for it to go wrong.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
2012/1/8 John Matthewman jmatthew...@gmail.com: I would like a window manager that has wmii's acme-like window management, but without the 9P filesystem, wmiir, support for configuration via python, ruby, etc. Trim the fat off of it (or perhaps it would be better to use dwm as a base to build upon, rather than trying to deconstruct wmii?) Quintin Guillaume posted a patch providing a wmii-like layout for dwm a while ago [1]. I doubt that it applies to current dwm as it probably is from the pre-Xinerama era of dwm, but it may be easily brought up to date. There were some updated versions of that patch, make sure to search the old d...@suckless.org mailing list archives for the latest one. [1] http://lists.suckless.org/dwm/0808/6435.html -- Thomas Dahms
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 1/9/12, Thomas Dahms thmsd...@googlemail.com wrote: 2012/1/8 John Matthewman jmatthew...@gmail.com: I would like a window manager that has wmii's acme-like window management, but without the 9P filesystem, wmiir, support for configuration via python, ruby, etc. Trim the fat off of it (or perhaps it would be better to use dwm as a base to build upon, rather than trying to deconstruct wmii?) Quintin Guillaume posted a patch providing a wmii-like layout for dwm a while ago [1]. I doubt that it applies to current dwm as it probably is from the pre-Xinerama era of dwm, but it may be easily brought up to date. There were some updated versions of that patch, make sure to search the old d...@suckless.org mailing list archives for the latest one. [1] http://lists.suckless.org/dwm/0808/6435.html Thanks for the tip! I vaguely remember reading about that patch a long time ago. Maybe I'll see if I can get it to work -- then try to make it a bit more mouse-friendly (like acme). Cheers, John
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Þann fim 5.jan 2012 23:12, skrifaði Connor Lane Smith: That's not inherent to GUIs, it just so happens that existing GUIs are extremely poorly made. It's not interaction which needs to be logged so much as the modification of persistent data -- files and such -- which could easily be logged by graphical apps. The more I think about it the more I believe terminals only continue to be used because of how awfully bad the alternatives are. That's not enough. I want the output of all commands (messages, documents, calculations, notes and error reports) to be stored on increasingly mainstream terabyte disks along with enough metadata to uniquely identify it. Modification is superseding a file with a derivation. Derivatives that do not supersede any other file need also be stored, whether they be drafts for future supersedes or files on their own.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 7 January 2012 17:26, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com wrote: That's not enough. I want the output of all commands (messages, documents, calculations, notes and error reports) to be stored on increasingly mainstream terabyte disks along with enough metadata to uniquely identify it. Modification is superseding a file with a derivation. Derivatives that do not supersede any other file need also be stored, whether they be drafts for future supersedes or files on their own. So long as you have the input state for those commands -- the files themselves -- why must we log the output for each and every command? If we know the state of the directory, why log invocations of `ls`? If we know the state of the file, why log invocations of `sort` (unless we're writing to a file)? If we maintain complete version history, such logs are nothing but a waste of space: we may as well just open a shell viewing the system as it was that day, and `sort` afresh. cls
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 05:50:06PM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote: So long as you have the input state for those commands -- the files themselves -- why must we log the output for each and every command? Error correction. If we know the state of the directory, why log invocations of `ls`? ls could have been highjacked by malicious elements. I want to know if he called it with a full path or relied on his $PATH. The same objection applies to sort. If we maintain complete version history, such logs are nothing but a waste of space: Or they're a pretty comprehensive auditing tool. we may as well just open a shell viewing the system as it was that day, and `sort` afresh. I'm ok with this plan too, for other reasons, but I would prefer a completely auditable system.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 7 January 2012 20:21, de...@gmx.de wrote: But for me, wmii's window managing is far better than dwm's one. I tried dwm for eight weeks. Now back to wmii. I like the stagged mode at most. I like window titles. I like columns. Someone could implement a stacked mode patch for dwm based on two extra windows (similar to the dwm bar) per column -- wouldn't be too hard. But wmii has no future at suckless.org Best regards, Anselm
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Patrick Haller
201009-suckl...@haller.ws wrote:
On 2012-01-01 21:13, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
So I considered the trade-offs between SLOC minimalism, project and
community activity, and my productivity in DWM vs. WMII and finally
decided to switch back to WMII (which I used since six years prior).
How often do people re-evaluate their toolsets?
With my shell, I can examine shell history and do stuff like:
cd() {
dir=$1
test -f $1 dir=`dirname $1`
builtin cd $dir ls | sed 10q | fmt -w $COLUMNS
}
With X11, do we screencast a day's work and watch it in fast-forward?
That's related to one of the reasons I tend to prefer doing stuff on
the command line: we know how to record textual operations and search
them relatively efficiently. On my machine each terminal's history
file is given a unique name and the each command (command, not output)
is stored as a (time, current directory, command) in the file and the
files are stored forever (minus a couple of simple space savers like
not storing incredibly frequent commands like pwd, df, ls, etc). Then
months later I can often figure out something that I did from a vague
memory (eg, I'm sure I had to hack a symlink to a library to make
something work a couple of months ago, which ln -s commands did I
issue around the time my cwd was last trialProgSource?) I don't do it
often, but occasionally it comes up and saves me an hour or two
investigation.
I'm not aware of any way of either storing or, more importantly,
searching a user's interaction with the GUI apps on a computer system.
--
cheers, dave tweed__
computer vision researcher: david.tw...@gmail.com
while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python. --
attempted insult seen on slashdot
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Hey, On 5 January 2012 14:19, David Tweed david.tw...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not aware of any way of either storing or, more importantly, searching a user's interaction with the GUI apps on a computer system. That's not inherent to GUIs, it just so happens that existing GUIs are extremely poorly made. It's not interaction which needs to be logged so much as the modification of persistent data -- files and such -- which could easily be logged by graphical apps. The more I think about it the more I believe terminals only continue to be used because of how awfully bad the alternatives are. cls
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:12:44PM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote: That's not inherent to GUIs, it just so happens that existing GUIs are extremely poorly made. It's not interaction which needs to be logged so much as the modification of persistent data -- files and such -- which could easily be logged by graphical apps. This just changes the question from what did you do? to what the hell caused that change? Both of these things need to be logged.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
I don't understand how this is related to your quote?
You always execute ls when you cd to a different folder?
On 02.01.2012, Patrick Haller 201009-suckl...@haller.ws wrote:
On 2012-01-01 21:13, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
So I considered the trade-offs between SLOC minimalism, project and
community activity, and my productivity in DWM vs. WMII and finally
decided to switch back to WMII (which I used since six years prior).
How often do people re-evaluate their toolsets?
With my shell, I can examine shell history and do stuff like:
cd() {
dir=$1
test -f $1 dir=`dirname $1`
builtin cd $dir ls | sed 10q | fmt -w $COLUMNS
}
With X11, do we screencast a day's work and watch it in fast-forward?
Every three months I look at
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lightweight_Software
and occasionally find stuff (like zathura).
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 2012-01-02 12:26, hiro wrote: I don't understand how this is related to your quote? Suraj re-evaluated his toolset. I think the re-evaluation part is a good idea, however it seems you could spend too much time doing it. You always execute ls when you cd to a different folder? in interactive shells, yes. I examined my interactive shell history and found that I had too many cd then ls, amongst other things. However, it's not as easy to do the same analysis with my X11 interactions. Do people do this? How? Just guessing at my usage, I would think that sync'ing cut buffers, selections, vim last yank, and screen/tmux buffers would be a win. No clue without data, though
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
You can also use du instead of cd;ls Overloading simple, old, standard commands is bad for my inflexible brain. The X11 stuff is way too difficult for me to care.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Sat 24 Dec 2011 12:13:04 PM PST, dtk wrote: On 12/22/2011 05:54 PM, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: I'm another WMII expatriate and I'm still not completely used to DWM's lack of on-the-fly tag creation: especially when some new random task comes up and all of my tags are currently occupied. I'm forced to go to the least important tag and perform my new task there while tip-toeing around existing stuff. Yeah, well, really don't see me doin' that kind of stuff after I had a taste of WMII. How could I? Real show stopper for me. I assume, cls' suggestion of having 32 (hidden) static tags and renaming them at runtime might serve for a compromise. That whole static layouts thing, tho... :/ Good point. After seeing people take SLOC minimalism further than the suckless community's beloved DWM (c.f. MonsterWM), I realized that it all came down to *choice* and that I actually had a choice. So I considered the trade-offs between SLOC minimalism, project and community activity, and my productivity in DWM vs. WMII and finally decided to switch back to WMII (which I used since six years prior). However, the experience of using DWM for a month was not fruitless, because I applied that knowledge to further simplify my WMII config. Thanks for not giving up on WMII; you reminded me of its true value. Cheers. -- Depart not from the path which fate has assigned you.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 01/01/2012 11:13 PM, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: Good point. After seeing people take SLOC minimalism further than the suckless community's beloved DWM (c.f. MonsterWM), I realized that it all came down to *choice* and that I actually had a choice. So I considered the trade-offs between SLOC minimalism, project and community activity, and my productivity in DWM vs. WMII and finally decided to switch back to WMII (which I used since six years prior). Hooray! :) However, the experience of using DWM for a month was not fruitless, because I applied that knowledge to further simplify my WMII config. Thanks for not giving up on WMII; you reminded me of its true value. Thank you for not giving up on WMII either :) A lurker, David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 2012-01-01 21:13, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
So I considered the trade-offs between SLOC minimalism, project and
community activity, and my productivity in DWM vs. WMII and finally
decided to switch back to WMII (which I used since six years prior).
How often do people re-evaluate their toolsets?
With my shell, I can examine shell history and do stuff like:
cd() {
dir=$1
test -f $1 dir=`dirname $1`
builtin cd $dir ls | sed 10q | fmt -w $COLUMNS
}
With X11, do we screencast a day's work and watch it in fast-forward?
Every three months I look at
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lightweight_Software
and occasionally find stuff (like zathura).
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Hey cls, On 12/22/2011 04:57 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: On 22 December 2011 16:36, dtk d...@gmx.de wrote: nope, 32 is aplenty. Thing is, in wmii I create them on demand and name them dynamically (to reflect their purpose), which conveniently groups them as well. I just don't want the tag I do development of project A on to be on tag 5. Today. And on tag 6 is a browser with an interesting article. Today. But tomorrow, I wanna code on project B as well. Where would I put that? :/ It feels just soo static :| There's also nametag [1], which allows you to rename your tags at runtime, and a patch I wrote I could dig up which hides currently unused tags. Yeah, that sounds pretty nice. Well, you being so patient with me, I might as well get impolite -.- So, what's the policy here? All future development in patches, so we don't spoil that fancy 2K SLOC statistic everybody is so fond of? :/ *sceptic* Sounds weird. That would make for one tag per client then, for most of the time I can use only one client (basically) maximised. In dwm you can view multiple tags at the same time, which pulls all clients with that tag into view. (Which is really amazing once you get used to it. Other window managers just make me feel really constrained.) yeah, remember that from awesome, rarely used it, felt like a rather clumsy feature over there (might have been due to my key bindings). Still think it's a pity you have to loose that grouping of clients into topics if you need to have several tags per topic. I would like to have my IDE and a browser with corresponding API on the same tag. Purely for tidiness reasons :/ I think that is the great power of the stacked layout. I can have clients grouped within one tag, but I don't need to watch them all of the time. That's why I suggested flextile; it has a 'deck' layout. I think so. No way to have one client 'maximised'? Monocle layout? Yeah, will have to look into that. Is there a screenshot to be seen? Always associated it with awesome's monocle(?) layout, which was very inefficient as it comes to screen space, iirc. What if I need tree columns? I don't know what that means. ^^ I'm sorry. s/tree/three/ thx again dtk
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 24 December 2011 12:08, dtk d...@gmx.de wrote: So, what's the policy here? All future development in patches, so we don't spoil that fancy 2K SLOC statistic everybody is so fond of? :/ *sceptic* Hah. :) We fold in popular patches, slowly, so dwm doesn't become all bloated and unstable. My personal view is that if we take our time we can reduce each feature to its essential parts before adding another, instead of just adding all the features at once and suddenly you have huge amounts of code and it takes ages to pare it all down again. This happened when we added a bunch of patches to dmenu all at the same time; there were so many bugs generated as a result, mostly patch-incompatibility. So while I think we *should* fold in some more patches, and I don't really care about the SLOC limit, if we do we ought to do it slowly, so we can keep on top of it. A number of patches will remain separate though, since they are configuration options, such as layouts and so on. That's fine, since they can just be added to your config.h without changing dwm.c itself. Things like nametag are worth considering, though. Yeah, will have to look into that. Is there a screenshot to be seen? Always associated it with awesome's monocle(?) layout, which was very inefficient as it comes to screen space, iirc. I'm not sure a screenshot is necessary. It would just be a fullscreen window. :p If you hide the status bar it's honestly *just* the window. What if I need tree columns? I don't know what that means. ^^ I'm sorry. s/tree/three/ Ah! col layout [1]? ;) [1]: http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/columns Thanks, cls
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 12/24/11, Connor Lane Smith c...@lubutu.com wrote: I'm not sure a screenshot is necessary. It would just be a fullscreen window. :p If you hide the status bar it's honestly *just* the window. And a border, telling you whether it is focused or not (assuming a non-zero borderpx).
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Dnia 22 grudnia 2011 16:53 Manolo Martínez man...@austrohungaro.com napisał(a): The claim is that when this people finish rewriting dwm then go write their e-mails in Gnome 3? -- That's certainly possible, given compulsive behaviour of tweaking tweaks. They work day to day in Gnome, then try to emulate it's insanity in currently acceptable flavour of the month wm, then brag on their home forum with screenshots (arch forum anyone?), seeking peer approval. On the other hand, I, with my vastly superior ways, haven't really changed config.h since I started using dwm, and there is fuck all to show on screenshots, so taking them is pointless. (Last thing was turning off bar, since it was taking screen estate.) And none of that stupid scripts iterating pointlessly. I told u I was hardcore
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
I kill dwm when I've placed all my windows correctly so I can save more RAM. Everyone who wants more functionality than just placing his windows in a perfect way once and for all is stupid. On 23.12.2011, Jakub Lach jakub_l...@mailplus.pl wrote: Dnia 22 grudnia 2011 16:53 Manolo Martínez man...@austrohungaro.com napisał(a): The claim is that when this people finish rewriting dwm then go write their e-mails in Gnome 3? -- That's certainly possible, given compulsive behaviour of tweaking tweaks. They work day to day in Gnome, then try to emulate it's insanity in currently acceptable flavour of the month wm, then brag on their home forum with screenshots (arch forum anyone?), seeking peer approval. On the other hand, I, with my vastly superior ways, haven't really changed config.h since I started using dwm, and there is fuck all to show on screenshots, so taking them is pointless. (Last thing was turning off bar, since it was taking screen estate.) And none of that stupid scripts iterating pointlessly. I told u I was hardcore
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Dnia 23 grudnia 2011 11:34 hiro 23h...@googlemail.com napisał(a): I kill dwm when I've placed all my windows correctly so I can save more RAM. Everyone who wants more functionality than just placing his windows in a perfect way once and for all is stupid. Words of wisdom! For ultimate RAM saving experience, I recommend turning off computer, and dusting off pad and pencil!
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:34:35 -, hiro 23h...@googlemail.com wrote: I kill dwm when I've placed all my windows correctly so I can save more RAM. I actually did that the other day, so I could GIMP my Christmas cards.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Fri 23 Dec 2011 10:24:54 AM PST, Jakub Lach wrote: They work day to day in Gnome, then try to emulate it's insanity in currently acceptable flavour of the month wm, then brag on their home forum with screenshots (arch forum anyone?), seeking peer approval. Touché! s/Gnome/wmii/ and you'll have caught me red-handed. ;-) -- Goodbye, cool world.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 11/15/2011 06:59 AM, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: On Thu 10 Nov 2011 09:29:53 PM PST, Anselm R Garbe wrote: wmii is cursed. Its code base has grown by factor 3 or 4 in terms of SLOC, whereas its functionality has stalled. Thanks Anselm. I think I've held on to the past for too long, and avoided DWM mainly out of disinterest in C. [...] So save me a seat on the Suckless community van! ;) outch :/ Actually, there are 2.5 features that make wmii such an awesome WM for me: * dynamic tagging * manual layouts * specifically the stacked layout I tag clients according to the topic they deal with (yess, I have *several* Firefox windows open on different tags at any given point in time -.-), which is why static tagging with a predefined number of tags works really really bad for me :/ I only have 1024x768 pixels of screen space, and permanently displaying unused windows in a slave area is *such* a horror. Being able to swiftly create a new column (or maybe even two) with an independent layout when needed and merge clients back into a single column is such a treat. I could probably do without a whole lot of the features that bloat the code base (been using rumai basically from the start of my wmii love affair, don't need no fancy 9P), maybe even without a config file at all (although rumai is *really* sweet and I sure wouldn't want to do that kind of customization in C :/) but the thing is, DWM just doesn't have the *features* for which I love wmii so much. And for as much as I would love to prefer a clean code base over cosmetic features: Unusable WM is unusable :( Really sad wmii seems to be going nowhere :( dtk
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Hey, On 22 December 2011 15:35, dtk d...@gmx.de wrote: I tag clients according to the topic they deal with (yess, I have *several* Firefox windows open on different tags at any given point in time -.-), which is why static tagging with a predefined number of tags works really really bad for me :/ That doesn't make any sense. dwm can have up to 32 tags. Do you tend to use more than 32 tags in wmii? If not, why are you worried about hitting that limit? Whether you defined the number at compile time is irrelevant in this case. I only have 1024x768 pixels of screen space, and permanently displaying unused windows in a slave area is *such* a horror. This is why dwm has tags: just don't view the tags you aren't using. Like you say, tag clients according to their role, and then by definition those which are not being used needn't be seen. However, you may be interested in flextile [1]. Being able to swiftly create a new column (or maybe even two) with an independent layout when needed and merge clients back into a single column is such a treat. If you substitute tag for column, this is the dwm workflow. In my experience columns tend to over-complicate... Especially if each has its own layout. Are you sure, say, flextile isn't enough? Unusable WM is unusable :( It's true that dwm doesn't work like wmii. I think that's for the better. Clearly, some may disagree, but I think if you try doing things the dwm way, you may be surprised how pleasant it is to use. Failing that, i3 [2] is a wmii-style still in development, though it has a whole bunch of bugs that irritated me too much, so I returned to the much more stable dwm. (With nmaster. Can't go without nmaster.) [1]: http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/flextile [2]: http://i3wm.org Thanks, cls
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Hey, thx for your quick response! On 12/22/2011 03:49 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: On 22 December 2011 15:35, dtk d...@gmx.de wrote: I tag clients according to the topic they deal with (yess, I have *several* Firefox windows open on different tags at any given point in time -.-), which is why static tagging with a predefined number of tags works really really bad for me :/ That doesn't make any sense. dwm can have up to 32 tags. Do you tend to use more than 32 tags in wmii? If not, why are you worried about hitting that limit? Whether you defined the number at compile time is irrelevant in this case. nope, 32 is aplenty. Thing is, in wmii I create them on demand and name them dynamically (to reflect their purpose), which conveniently groups them as well. I just don't want the tag I do development of project A on to be on tag 5. Today. And on tag 6 is a browser with an interesting article. Today. But tomorrow, I wanna code on project B as well. Where would I put that? :/ It feels just soo static :| I only have 1024x768 pixels of screen space, and permanently displaying unused windows in a slave area is *such* a horror. This is why dwm has tags: just don't view the tags you aren't using. Like you say, tag clients according to their role, and then by definition those which are not being used needn't be seen. However, you may be interested in flextile [1]. Sounds weird. That would make for one tag per client then, for most of the time I can use only one client (basically) maximised. Then layouts wouldn't be used to layout clients within tags, but several tags across one screen. According to my feeling, that needlessly shoves everything one level up in the structuring hierarchy, leaving me wanting for one more level to group all tags that belong to one activity (e.g. project A). Why not have clever layouts? I think that is the great power of the stacked layout. I can have clients grouped within one tag, but I don't need to watch them all of the time. Being able to swiftly create a new column (or maybe even two) with an independent layout when needed and merge clients back into a single column is such a treat. If you substitute tag for column, this is the dwm workflow. In my experience columns tend to over-complicate... Especially if each has its own layout. Are you sure, say, flextile isn't enough? I think so. No way to have one client 'maximised'? I think that whole 'this is your layout, work around it' approach is flawed. What if I need tree columns? Unusable WM is unusable :( It's true that dwm doesn't work like wmii. I think that's for the better. Clearly, some may disagree, but I think if you try doing things the dwm way, you may be surprised how pleasant it is to use. Yeah, I feel like a petulant child right now. I just cannot see how to do the stuff I feel I need with static layouts. And since I don't believe that manual layouts are what bloat wmii, I fail to understand why I cannot haz them :/ Worse, I fail to see why I'm the only one who wants them *lonely* -.- Failing that, i3 [2] is a wmii-style still in development, though it has a whole bunch of bugs that irritated me too much, so I returned to the much more stable dwm. (With nmaster. Can't go without nmaster.) Thanks a lot for your hints! I really appreciate it! Best dtk
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
lol, people on suckless don't actually use their window managers, they brag about it and rewrite it and rewrite it and rewrite it. It's more of a hobby than a necessity for them.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 12/22/11 at 04:47pm, hiro wrote: lol, people on suckless don't actually use their window managers, they brag about it and rewrite it and rewrite it and rewrite it. It's more of a hobby than a necessity for them. The claim is that when this people finish rewriting dwm then go write their e-mails in Gnome 3? --
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
Somebody claiming to be dtk wrote: This is why dwm has tags: just don't view the tags you aren't using. Like you say, tag clients according to their role, and then by definition those which are not being used needn't be seen. However, you may be interested in flextile [1]. wouldn't be used to layout clients within tags, but several tags across one screen. According to my feeling, that needlessly shoves everything one level up in the structuring hierarchy, leaving me wanting for one more level to group all tags that belong to one activity (e.g. project A). Why not have clever layouts? I think that is the great power of the stacked layout. I can have clients grouped within one tag, but I don't need to watch them all of the time. I think so. No way to have one client 'maximised'? I think we call this monacle mode -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See http://singpolyma.net for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 22 December 2011 16:36, dtk d...@gmx.de wrote: nope, 32 is aplenty. Thing is, in wmii I create them on demand and name them dynamically (to reflect their purpose), which conveniently groups them as well. I just don't want the tag I do development of project A on to be on tag 5. Today. And on tag 6 is a browser with an interesting article. Today. But tomorrow, I wanna code on project B as well. Where would I put that? :/ It feels just soo static :| There's also nametag [1], which allows you to rename your tags at runtime, and a patch I wrote I could dig up which hides currently unused tags. Sounds weird. That would make for one tag per client then, for most of the time I can use only one client (basically) maximised. In dwm you can view multiple tags at the same time, which pulls all clients with that tag into view. (Which is really amazing once you get used to it. Other window managers just make me feel really constrained.) I think that is the great power of the stacked layout. I can have clients grouped within one tag, but I don't need to watch them all of the time. That's why I suggested flextile; it has a 'deck' layout. I think so. No way to have one client 'maximised'? Monocle layout? What if I need tree columns? I don't know what that means. [1]: http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/nametag cls
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Thu 22 Dec 2011 04:36:55 PM PST, dtk wrote: I just cannot see how to do the stuff I feel I need with static layouts. And since I don't believe that manual layouts are what bloat wmii, I fail to understand why I cannot haz them :/ Worse, I fail to see why I'm the only one who wants them *lonely* -.- Well, you're not alone. I'm another WMII expatriate and I'm still not completely used to DWM's lack of on-the-fly tag creation: especially when some new random task comes up and all of my tags are currently occupied. I'm forced to go to the least important tag and perform my new task there while tip-toeing around existing stuff. The holidays are coming up, so maybe I'll finally write a patch. :) -- The disks are getting full; purge a file today.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Thu 22 Dec 2011 04:57:24 PM PST, Connor Lane Smith wrote: In dwm you can view multiple tags at the same time, which pulls all clients with that tag into view. (Which is really amazing once you get used to it. Other window managers just make me feel really constrained.) Now that you mention it, I rarely use this feature because it's too coarse grained. For instance, I have tags pre-allocated for particular tasks so viewing more than one of them simultaneously pulls in too many unrelated clients into my view when I'm usually interested in a subset. In contrast, WMII has fine-grained multi-tagging (a client can appear on multiple views) so I would either (1) choose a client from dmenu to pull into my current view or (2) go to the tag I want and multi-tag the clients that I'm interested in to appear on my combined view. tl;dr Multi-tagging is cool and useful, but too coarse grained in DWM. -- Prof:So the American government went to IBM to come up with a data encryption standard and they came up with ... Student: EBCDIC!
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On 22 December 2011 18:02, Suraj N. Kurapati sun...@gmail.com wrote: In contrast, WMII has fine-grained multi-tagging (a client can appear on multiple views) so I would either (1) choose a client from dmenu to pull into my current view or (2) go to the tag I want and multi-tag the clients that I'm interested in to appear on my combined view. tl;dr Multi-tagging is cool and useful, but too coarse grained in DWM. I don't understand what you mean. In dwm a single client can have multiple tags, and one can also view multiple tags. It's a strict superset of wmii's functionality. cls
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Thu 22 Dec 2011 06:07:05 PM PST, Connor Lane Smith wrote: On 22 December 2011 18:02, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: Multi-tagging is cool and useful, but too coarse grained in DWM. I don't understand what you mean. In dwm a single client can have multiple tags, and one can also view multiple tags. It's a strict superset of wmii's functionality. You're right. I forgot about the ability to multi-tag clients, sorry. * toggleview is the coarse-grained control that pulls in entire tags. * toggletag is the fine-grained control that pulls in certain clients. -- Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Dec 22, 2011 12:03 PM, Suraj N. Kurapati sun...@gmail.com wrote: Now that you mention it, I rarely use this feature because it's too coarse grained. For instance, I have tags pre-allocated for particular tasks so viewing more than one of them simultaneously pulls in too many unrelated clients into my view when I'm usually interested in a subset. I'm almost certain you're using dwm wrong.
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Thu 22 Dec 2011 02:05:36 PM PST, Jacob Todd wrote: On Dec 22, 2011 12:03 PM, Suraj N. Kurapati sun...@gmail.com wrote: Now that you mention it, I rarely use this feature because it's too coarse grained. For instance, I have tags pre-allocated for particular tasks so viewing more than one of them simultaneously pulls in too many unrelated clients into my view when I'm usually interested in a subset. I'm almost certain you're using dwm wrong. Yeah, it's only been a month since I switched from 6+ years of WMII. -- Message from Our Sponsor on ttyTV at 13:58 ...
Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor
On Thu 10 Nov 2011 09:29:53 PM PST, Anselm R Garbe wrote: wmii is cursed. Its code base has grown by factor 3 or 4 in terms of SLOC, whereas its functionality has stalled. Thanks Anselm. I think I've held on to the past for too long, and avoided DWM mainly out of disinterest in C. However, after recently contributing[1] to a 36K+ SLOC C codebase, I no longer fear DWM's 2K SLOC codebase. So save me a seat on the Suckless community van! ;) [1]: http://snk.tuxfamily.org/log/oniguruma-negated-regexps.html -- I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
