Re: [wmii] wmii-3 mean real improvements?

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:58:22PM -0400, ellotheth rimmwen wrote:
> On 5/21/06, phyrster <phyrster_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Any wmii2 to wmii3 users share this feeling?
>
> Yes, actually. I miss the old configuration style (patching the source
> to move the bar to the top of the screen seems a little extreme to
> me), and the ability to close windows with a middle-click on the
> titlebar, and the cursor following keyboard focus-changes. (I know,

There are reasons why we made the position of the bar (and
wmiimenu) not configurable. Once people get used to fixed
places, they don't ask to move the bar somewhere else and this
reduces some unnecessary code complexity. There are no real
arguments of having the bar at top or bottom, beside personal
taste and habit.

Well, my personal reasons for putting the bar to the bottom are
pragmatic ones:
- Floating clients need no y-offsets to not overlap the bar
- Usually I concentrate more on the upper half of the screen and
  I don't want to get distracted by status info all the time (I
  think computer users notice the changes of the status more at
  the top, than in the bottom - but I can't prove this thesis.

If all people ask to have the bar at the top, I'm open to put it
to the top. But I bet several people like the bottom position.
If there were really serious reasons, I'd also be open to make
it configurable, but I haven't see such so far.

> little things.) I could get used to stacking, but as a screen
> real-estate junkie, I think stacking vs. tabs is something akin to
> rock vs. hard place. (And do I correctly understand the new layout
> model that views can't be saved between sessions?)

I recommend using swsuspend2 if you want session support (I do
it all the days, suspend to disk, wake up and my desktop looks
like I left it).

Regards,

-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361