On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Petr Sabata wrote:
> It's in the default dwm config, line 93...
Woops. I guess I should probably glance at config.def.h once in a
while. I must have removed that so long ago that it was lost in the
mists of brain.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul Weber
wrote:
> Isn't "docking" really just another layout? One where most windows tile
> below a window kept at the top/side?
>
Kinda, but it then it depends on recursive window management.
Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> their status bar without a bunch of garish icons; text will suffice.
Yes, but using fancy fonts. Thankfully, patching is possible. Thus my
point is moot.
Robert Pansom wrote:
>I would think you'ld *like* setting _NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS to 2^10 by
Or 2^9-1. But your point
Somebody claiming to be Peter John Hartman wrote:
I'm really not convinced a generic status bar would work better than
dwm's does now.
Not that I care about statusbars and dockbars--I just want dwm to play nice
with onscreen keyboards---I think, that said, that his point is that there's
no conc
On 17/10/2011, Peter John Hartman wrote:
> Not that I care about statusbars and dockbars--I just want dwm to play nice
> with onscreen keyboards---I think, that said, that his point is that there's
> no conceptual tension between dwm and a statusbar *since dwm has a
> statusbar*.
I agree, then. I
On 2011-10-16, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
> wrote:
>> First, docking is generally useful for panels. Dwm sucks as a status
>> bar. Should the information displayed in the status bar not be
>> properties on the root window to dwm? A panel can then kee
> That's not exactly what I'd describe as an application launcher, but I
> still don't understand what you're complaining about. If you want to
> change dwm's status bar, customise your buttons[]. (And a clock?
> That's just the root window title.)
>
> I'm really not convinced a generic status bar
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:08:04AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius
> wrote:
> > Try clicking the title (selmon->bar IIRC). Wait for a terminal
> > emulator to spawn.
>
> What? No. What code do you see that's supposed to do that? Did you
> put th
On 17/10/2011, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> What? No. What code do you see that's supposed to do that? Did you
> put that into your config.h?
config.def.h:93
On 17/10/2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> Try clicking the title (selmon->bar IIRC). Wait for a terminal
> emulator to spawn.
That's not ex
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
> Try clicking the title (selmon->bar IIRC). Wait for a terminal
> emulator to spawn.
What? No. What code do you see that's supposed to do that? Did you
put that into your config.h?
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 17/10/2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> dmenu != dwm
>
Try clicking the title (selmon->bar IIRC). Wait for a terminal
emulator to spawn.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
> Yet dwm sports a half-assed status bar that works as an application
> launcher and clock. This could be implemented more modularily by
> XEmbedding... although it would probably wind more complicated than
> necessary.
dwm's status bar i
On 17/10/2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> a half-assed status bar that works as an application launcher
dmenu != dwm
cls
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> Panels are a part of a different interface paradigm. dwm does not
> have desktops. This is another example of software that shouldn't be
> crammed into dwm.
>
Yet dwm sports a half-assed status bar that works as an application
launcher and
Greetings comrades,
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I'm back from a longer vacation and take this patch under review to
> think if it would fit into mainline dwm.
it should be under review for a longer time, until the touch
front is able to show some more results. Otherwise the general
scepticism of the
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
> First, docking is generally useful for panels. Dwm sucks as a status
> bar. Should the information displayed in the status bar not be
> properties on the root window to dwm? A panel can then keep track of
> _NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS = 2^(N
First, docking is generally useful for panels. Dwm sucks as a status
bar. Should the information displayed in the status bar not be
properties on the root window to dwm? A panel can then keep track of
_NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS = 2^(NUMBER_OF_TAGS)-1 (or just
NUMBER_OF_TAGS) and perhaps the current la
On 10/16/11, Peter John Hartman <> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:13:03PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Anselm R Garbe <>
>> wrote:
>> > Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less?
>
> I think there's a category error or something here. Touch inter
On 16 October 2011 18:30, Peter John Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:13:03PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> > Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less?
>
> I think there's a category error or something here. Touch
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:13:03PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> > Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less?
I think there's a category error or something here. Touch interfaces,
indeed, entire touch-driven devices exist. Suc
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less?
No.
--
# Kurt H Maier
[2011-10-16 17:54] Anselm R Garbe
>
> Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less?
No.
meillo
Hi together,
On 9 October 2011 21:17, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> attached is the patch I proposed some months ago, to add support
> for dock windows in dwm, polished for current r1575:b899c8748939.
I'm back from a longer vacation and take this patch under review to
think if it wou
Greetings comrades,
attached is the patch I proposed some months ago, to add support
for dock windows in dwm, polished for current r1575:b899c8748939.
As you can see on [0], svkbd is now taking a reserved space, which
it inherits on all tags. That way for example an on-screen keyboard
can be show
24 matches
Mail list logo
