Agreed, people forgets that wmi did support nesting in a similar sense
to this (with frames or whatever it was called), and nesting of window
structures sucks when the main input method is the keyboard (In rio
the boundary is better defined, plus the use of the mouse makes the
context much more exp
2009/7/8 yy :
> 2009/7/5 Alexander Polakov :
>> Well, explaining is not my best (and english too), so better take a
>> look at a picture
>> http://rootshell.be/~polachok/trash/dwm-in-a-win.png
>
> Well, I think this is awesome, it is sad to see how quickly this
> thread turned into another dead-e
Sorry, but this sounds complicated.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:57 AM, yy wrote:
> 2009/7/5 Alexander Polakov :
>> Well, explaining is not my best (and english too), so better take a
>> look at a picture
>> http://rootshell.be/~polachok/trash/dwm-in-a-win.png
>
> Well, I think this is awesome, it
2009/7/5 Alexander Polakov :
> Well, explaining is not my best (and english too), so better take a
> look at a picture
> http://rootshell.be/~polachok/trash/dwm-in-a-win.png
Well, I think this is awesome, it is sad to see how quickly this
thread turned into another dead-end discussion about how
I will note that devdraw has been ported to run on top of X
(http://plan9.us), and X has been ported to run on top of devdraw
(equis by fgb).
(Devdraw has also been ported to win32 as part of drawterm and
inferno, and as part of a GSoC project to port 9vx to windows.)
So if somebody wanted to bui
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> David Tweed dixit (2009-07-07, 16:58):
>> system, the "full" display-postscript compositing engine behind "full"
>> GNUstep and all those other "new" windowing systems that never
>> actually got anywhere near completion because the only thing
David Tweed dixit (2009-07-07, 16:58):
[...]
> system, the "full" display-postscript compositing engine behind "full"
> GNUstep and all those other "new" windowing systems that never
> actually got anywhere near completion because the only thing one could
> do with them in their current state was
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> a) on top of existing ones
>>
>> b) existing ones on top
>>
>> I tend to a) atm just because it would make porting to other platforms
>> so much simpler.
>
> There is no point to running a
2009/7/7 Kurt H Maier :
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> a) on top of existing ones
>>
>> b) existing ones on top
>>
>> I tend to a) atm just because it would make porting to other platforms
>> so much simpler.
>
> There is no point to running a window system on top of an
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> a) on top of existing ones
>
> b) existing ones on top
>
> I tend to a) atm just because it would make porting to other platforms
> so much simpler.
There is no point to running a window system on top of an existing
window system, unless ther
2009/7/7 Robert C Corsaro :
> Preben Randhol wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 01:30:13 +0200
>> Uriel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> How is it different from rio[1]?
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, forgot that X is over thirty years behind on window system
>>> technology[2].
>>>
>>
>> I'm getting fed up with this X bashin
Preben Randhol wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 01:30:13 +0200
Uriel wrote:
How is it different from rio[1]?
Oh, wait, forgot that X is over thirty years behind on window system
technology[2].
I'm getting fed up with this X bashing. Can't you put effort in making
something better than moan
Uriel dixit (2009-07-07, 02:49):
> Funny, I would think X apologists need to find something new to whine about.
>
> As for Plan 9 not being the future, it seems that even the X
> developers themselves disagree with you, there is a reason they lifted
> the new X rendering model directly from plan9
Funny, I would think X apologists need to find something new to whine about.
As for Plan 9 not being the future, it seems that even the X
developers themselves disagree with you, there is a reason they lifted
the new X rendering model directly from plan9's draw device.
uriel
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009
We could also just start moaning in canon.
For I at least like to moan about bashing about moaning about bash.
Thank you for your attention.
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 01:30:13 +0200
Uriel wrote:
> How is it different from rio[1]?
>
> Oh, wait, forgot that X is over thirty years behind on window system
> technology[2].
I'm getting fed up with this X bashing. Can't you put effort in making
something better than moaning about X all the time.
Yeah. But at least it doesn't look like rio. :)
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 01:30:13AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
> How is it different from rio[1]?
>
> Oh, wait, forgot that X is over thirty years behind on window system
> technology[2].
--
Jake Todd
// If it isn't broke, tweak it!
pgpJoNu4NA254.pgp
De
How is it different from rio[1]?
Oh, wait, forgot that X is over thirty years behind on window system
technology[2].
uriel
[1] http://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/rio
[2] http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/concurrent_window_system/
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Mate Nagy wrote:
> Yo,
>> Something lik
What's wrong with using floating mode for some windows?
--
Samuel 'Shardz' Baldwin - staticfree.info/~samuel
Yo,
> Something like this was requested by some people here and there who
> are not comfortable with running a tiling window manager for all the
> windows.
how is this different from Xephyr/Xnest?
Regards,
Mate
Hi all
Something like this was requested by some people here and there who
are not comfortable with running a tiling window manager for all the
windows.
Well, explaining is not my best (and english too), so better take a
look at a picture
http://rootshell.be/~polachok/trash/dwm-in-a-win.png
21 matches
Mail list logo
