Re: [dev][surf] Next schedule?

From: Antoni Grzymala <>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:02:32 +0200 dixit (2009-09-17, 10:48):

> * Antoni Grzymala <> [2009-09-17 10:16]:
> > I usually have about 70 tabs open in Opera (and often lots more). Since
> > Operas tab manager is *specialized* for this number of fullscreen
> > windows it works well. I can easyli navigate those using single-letter
> > keystrokes.
> >
> > This isn't possible or sensible in a wm which is designed for a somewhat
> > different purpose and with rather different number of clients in mind.
> >
> > Stop this wm lunacy. dwm is just as limited for that purpose as is your
> > next non-tiling WIMP-based window manager. Opera's built-in wm is a good
> > workaround for that problem, I don't see in what way it is ugly (and it
> > works already).
> You are right -- opera (or whatever tabbed application ) may work perfectly
> for what it is intended for: to manage multiple instances of the browser's
> (application's) window and let them appear as one.
> Then, from dwm perspective you are forced to see all tabs of this
> application as a whole, e.g. assign it multiple tags and have all tabs in
> all these tags, no matter weather relevant for the tag (or task, if we
> assume tags mimic tasks) or not. Of course, you can open multiple windows

Er... Tasks (tags) in www browsing would be absurd, because I'd either
have to define a limited sensible number of them and try to assign
anything I come across the web to them, or create an arbitrary number of
tags which I would promptly forget and which would have much less sense
that seeing all at once (which I do now). Either way is mad for
something as undefined and random as the web.

> instead of tabs, but firing new window of firefox (currently) and opera (at
> the time I stopped using opera) takes much more time and resources than
> firing uzbl or surf.

I don't see how that hits any reasonably modern computer resources (I
mean Opera, firefox is notorious for bringing down to its knees anything
you throw at it). Resource usage is not an argument in this discussion
for me. Actually, I'd use dwm were it written in Tcl/Tk or Python, for I
like the concept and don't give a shit about it's implementation
(teasing all the C-maniacs here :)).

> I used to depend heavily on sessions and especially tabs. I started using
> them in a non-tiling WM and was attracted by the lower memory consumption.
> I even hacked couple of ugly scripts for loading and saving sessions in
> w3m+screen. I misused tabs and sessions for bookmarking and TODO related
> stuff, until I asked myself one day how would it be without them, and
> found that there is life beyond tabs and sessions -- as it often happens
> with fancy features. (which I surely don't need to tell to any
> ex-wmii-now-dwm user, for instance)

Definitely there's life beyond that. I just don't see why I should be
trying it again. Been there already (most of us have).


Received on Thu Sep 17 2009 - 09:02:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Sep 17 2009 - 09:12:04 UTC