Re: [dwm] We need a different Xinerama implementation

(Sigh, send before finished, sorry)

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 6:44 AM, David Edmondson <dme_AT_dme.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_suckless.org> wrote:
> > I more and more come to the conclusion that classical multihead
> > support is not worth the effort anymore. The DISPLAY= variable
> > should do the trick for those setups (meaning running separate
> > instances of dwm for each screen) -- but Xinerama provides much
> > more possibilities so that I see a different use case here.
>
> I've no interest in classic multihead (today!). Are there many reasons
> why having a single window manager for multiple DISPLAYs is
> compelling?
>
>
> > I consider different tagsets for each screen, which can't be
> > selected in a join way, to prevent the basic problem of being
> > unable to display the same window on different screens.
>
> A couple of things occur to me about this:
 - whether it is a problem depends on how people expect to use their
system. I my case I find the distinct tagsets per monitor very
confusing (tested with awesome - not tried dwm tip yet). I tend to
remember which applications have a particular tag, so it's easy to
make those applications come 'here' (to the monitor I'm looking at)
easily. The 'partitioned' tagset (1-4 on monitor 1, 5-8 on monitor 2)
would make this more difficult, particularly if I decide that I'd like
to see tagsets 1 and 3 side by side.
 - we could do something more interesting in the case where multiple
monitors show the same tags. For example, if monitor 1 and monitor 2
both show tag 1, we might treat monitor 2 as a part of the "right hand
side". Divide it into two columns and effectively have a "main column
+ three residuals" layout.

dme.
Received on Fri Feb 15 2008 - 07:49:36 UTC