Re: [dev] tabbed - why?

From: Calvin Morrison <>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:26:47 -0500

I think the case is this:

dwm has extremely limited stacking which is less efficient (in terms
of user interaction not computer performance) then i3's tree based
model, which allows substacking quite easily.

If you use a tree based model, adding a tabbed mechanism is trivial,
doesn't require any additional xembed work that tabbed does, and is
just another function of managing windows. I'm not sure that adding a
whole 'nother program in between dwm and st is suckless.

If tabbing is just a form of window management, why don't we seperate
all tiling modes into separate programs.

I do think that managing windows is part of the window manager, as
multiple st instances are each a window, it seems best to tab them
with the window manager.

On 17 February 2014 11:48, FRIGN <> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:29:06 -0500
> Calvin Morrison <> wrote:
>> That is what is clearly not clear. In a group so focused on clarity
>> and logic, I am amazed by the inability to give a concise answer other
>> than "it's not my use case, but i'm sure there is one out there
>> somewhere'
> Well, our clarity is expressed by the fact we're not trying to extract
> knowledge from where we clearly can't speak from experience.
> I can't speak for the people using tabbed, but I know the
> Unix-philosophy well enough to value a separate tabbing-program over
> reimplementing this feature in dwm.
> Thus this is in fact a pretty clear case, given tabbed is more than
> sufficient for this task.
> However: If you tell me a case where an integrated solution in dwm is
> superior to tabbed, I'm open for this debate.
> Cheers
> --
> FRIGN <>
Received on Mon Feb 17 2014 - 20:26:47 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Feb 17 2014 - 20:36:06 CET