On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:26:47 -0500
Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
You still didn't answer my question, so I don't get to see the point of
debate.
I often hear people saying how efficient and lean this and that
model of window management is, and how dwm is limited and retarded for
being so backward.
If you're happy with i3, stay with i3.
Moreover, we're discussing tabbed in this thread, and not dwm's
fundamental concept of window management.
As I said, I'll only engage in a real discussion with you if you
present me a reason how exactly it's going to be beneficial for tabbed
to be integrated into dwm directly.
> If tabbing is just a form of window management, why don't we seperate
> all tiling modes into separate programs.
Because that's not breaking the conventions we set up for a tiling-wm.
More importantly, tabbing happens in one window (apart from the wm),
whereas tiling of course is a handling of multiple windows, thus part
of dwm's competence.
> 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.
In the end, you're just repeating your personal opinion without
justifying it. I got that before already.
And just a personal remark: Please stop top-posting.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Mon Feb 17 2014 - 18:49:31 CET