Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?

From: Julio Missao <julio.missao_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:42:16 -0300

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:48:57 -0400, Manolo Martínez <manolo_AT_austrohungaro.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/12 at 10:44am, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:24:20AM -0600, Jeremy Jackins wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:12 AM, KIMURA Masaru <hiyuh.root_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> however in my opinion a system tray is
> > > >> not necessary and should not be added to mainline.
> > > >
> > > > if you don't mind my asking, explain why?
> > > > just curious.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Necessity needs justification, not the other way around.
> > >
> >
> > This is correct, but in this case there's a simple answer anyway.
> >
> > System trays are a bandaid meant to address flaws in a faulty interface
> > metaphorr: you don't need a quick-access tool if you're not using a
> > stacked/floating window layout.
> >
>
> (I don't use systrays, but still:) How so? If you have, say, six windows per
> tag quick access might be useful. One can have a use policy that avoids this,
> but such use policies are not enforced by a tiling interface.
>

One might argue that, having that many windows per tag, no systray is going to
making your workflow easier.

I'm using this systray patch for a couple of reasons, and while it does its job,
I don't think it fits what dwm proposes to do.

-- 
J. Missao

Received on Thu Apr 05 2012 - 18:42:16 CEST