Re: [dev] uzbl

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:38 PM, <stanio_AT_cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> * Michael <misha_AT_netspark.org> [2009-05-24 21:55]:
>> Although concept of one page per instance isn't very useful for me right
>> now. I use dwm, and I want web page be full screen, but if I'm not in
>> monocle mode, pages get shrunk in a half if there is more than one page,
>> which is bad, and monocle mode isn't useful because I want my terminal
>> windows be tiled.
>
> With tabs you can view only one rendered document at a time. If you have
> multiple instances (e.g. with uzbl), you can send the inactive ones to
> some other (dedicated or whatever) tag.
>
> Then, to get some inactive to active is pretty much the same amount of
> keystrokes like you would need with tabs, isn't it?
>
>> I would be happy with buffers concept, like in Vim - you see only one
>> buffer in a time, but able to switch between, but probably it isn't what
>> developers want.
>
> I very much like what uzbl devs propose. It moves from the concept of
>
> - 'Here is everything I do with a browser' (e.g. check mails, debug web
>  appl, read news, watch videos ... ) to
>
> - 'Here is everything I need for doing X' (doing X being e.g. writing a
>  paper, web development, leisure activities, etc.'.
>
> For me, the second way of doing things is much better. I do use multiple
> buffers within Vim but only when all the files are related -- it enables
> me, for example, to copy across documents.

This is because (l)unix provides an awful environment for
multi-tasking, the proper solution is to provide a sane way to copy
data from one application to another. AFAIK vim has ways to use the X
copy buffer, but the whole thing stinks.

uriel

> For documents belonging to
> unrelated tasks, other multiplexing methods are better suited, e.g.
> different terminals, screen, dvtm or whatever. And dwm helps to manage this
> stuff the right way.
>
>
>> Another solution would be create tag for unwanted pages and bring one
>> (or few) of them to front when I need them, but unfortunately, to make
>> such things automatic dwm needs some kind of remote control, which is
>> not implemented yet (and probably won't).
>
> :o)
> should have read this before my suggestion in the first paragraph.
>
> btw, I still haven't given a try to uzbl. Shame on me :o)
>
> --
>  cheers
>  stanio_
>
>
Received on Sun May 24 2009 - 21:04:18 UTC