Re: [dev] wmii falling out of favor

From: dtk <>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:36:55 +0100


thx for your quick response!

On 12/22/2011 03:49 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 22 December 2011 15:35, dtk <> 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 me :/
> That doesn't make any sense. dwm can have up to 32 tags. Do you tend
> to use more than 32 tags in wmii? If not, why are you worried about
> hitting that limit? Whether you defined the number at compile time is
> irrelevant in this case.

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 tag 6 is a browser with an interesting
article. Today. But tomorrow, I wanna code on project B as well. Where
would I put that? :/ It feels just soo static :|

>> I only have 1024x768 pixels of screen space, and permanently displaying
>> unused windows in a slave area is *such* a horror.
> 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].

Sounds weird. That would make for one tag per client then, for most of
the time I can use only one client (basically) maximised. Then layouts
wouldn't be used to layout clients within tags, but several tags across
one screen. According to my feeling, that needlessly shoves everything
one level up in the structuring hierarchy, leaving me wanting for one
more level to group all tags that belong to one activity (e.g. project
A). Why not have clever layouts? I think that is the great power of the
stacked layout. I can have clients grouped within one tag, but I don't
need to watch them all of the time.

>> Being able to swiftly
>> create a new column (or maybe even two) with an independent layout when
>> needed and merge clients back into a single column is such a treat.
> If you substitute "tag" for "column", this is the dwm workflow. In my
> experience columns tend to over-complicate... Especially if each has
> its own layout. Are you sure, say, flextile isn't enough?

I think so. No way to have one client 'maximised'? I think that whole
'this is your layout, work around it' approach is flawed. What if I need
tree columns?

>> Unusable WM is unusable :(
> It's true that dwm doesn't work like wmii. I think that's for the
> better. Clearly, some may disagree, but I think if you try doing
> things the "dwm way", you may be surprised how pleasant it is to use.

Yeah, I feel like a petulant child right now. 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 *lonely* -.-

> Failing that, i3 [2] is a wmii-style still in development, though it
> has a whole bunch of bugs that irritated me too much, so I returned to
> the much more stable dwm. (With nmaster. Can't go without nmaster.)

Thanks a lot for your hints! I really appreciate it!

Received on Thu Dec 22 2011 - 16:36:55 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Dec 22 2011 - 16:48:05 CET