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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
42 matches
Mail list logo
