Head_on_a_Stick wrote:^ Fascinating explanation, thanks!
I find that dwm (with the appropriate tiling algorithm) closest approaches my ideal workflow and whenever I switch to a stacker I find that I'm wasting too much time moving and resizing windows.
Obviously I was not clear enough. And you seem to have missed this bit in the link
The issue with stacking window managers is they tend to expect you to iconify and raise or move and resize them. That in my opinion is also a fail.
You should never need to iconify a window it make no logical sense. If your iconifying it's to see something that's hidden. Your not closing it so intend to return to it. You should just start what it's hiding because that just one action.
You should never need to move a window unless it's to another desktop. If your moving it's to see something that's hidden. Your not closing it so intend to return to it. You should just start what it's hiding because that just one action.
Re-sizing windows is rarely needed if you run maximized. In general if your re-sizing windows your desktop setup is failing. You should rarely need to resize a window unless it's to split two windows on the same desktop. Perhaps to read a file and whilst entering text into a terminal.
iconifying makes no sense, if your iconifying it's to see something behind the active window or because your not wanting to use it currently. In either case you need to concentrate on what you do want to do, and do that instead. Just raise what your wanting to do and the window your trying to hid will just go down the stack.
The same goes for icons on the desktop. They make no sense. The desktop is just a directory and the application to manage directories is a file manager. It's the same number of actions to switch to your file manager as it is to switch to the desktop, and as it will be maximized... enough said.
That's why I was advocating running maximized and my openbox theme has no iconify button
https://www.box-look.org/p/1191774/
Memory is a mute point when we're using so little. So dwm uses 2.6MB
172.0 KiB + 35.5 KiB = 207.5 KiB fittstool
2.3 MiB + 487.5 KiB = 2.7 MiB tint2
4.2 MiB + 515.0 KiB = 4.7 MiB openbox
uses 8MB
Some of the Dragora guys are using Herbstluft and claiming it's using half a Meg. Remember the how low can you go thread?
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=129223
It's easy to be light. But the point I was making was it needs to be usable by anyone including your granny. I'm talking about thinking of different ways of using your interface. How to address the failings of the current ones. I chose fittslaw with notifications, maximized windows and using a panel like browser tabs. You chose a more conventional model. A dynamic wm that distorts xclock
That's cool, but could your granny use it? We'll have to disagree on dwm and dynamic wm's in general. If your a programmer dealing with mostly text in a terminal I can see they may work well. But for mixed content.... I don't think they're smart enough to change the layout dependent on the content type. Not yet. That means the user has to do it. That's why if I was to use a tiling wm I'd use a manual one, probably notion. But hey, run what you brung I say. Choice is good.
I'm assuming you were just wanting to show your wallpaper and there's nothing wrong with your algorithm seeing all that wasted space on your desktop scrot.
Re the shell Dragora 3 alpha released last night has a light shell by default. Not much to it yet and they are still trying to see if it will build across all the arches. I've not even booted it to X yet. Maybe your cup of tea. Like Alpine or Void. The package manager qi can be used on any distro as it will build static packages so not interfere with their own package manager. Website is not up to date so finding the iso maybe a challenge and as I said it's very much a testers alpha so likely to change daily and will be full of bugs.
