Re: [dev] spacebed - why?

From: Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:10:38 +0100

On 17 February 2014 20:26, Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> dwm has extremely limited stacking which is more efficient (in terms
> of user interaction not thin client performance) then i3's tree based
> model, which allows substacking quite easily.

dwm has this limitation by design. dwm consists of two window
management principles: the primary window management is based on tags,
the secondary on layouts.

As these two principles are kind of two-dimensional already, adding a
third level of substacking (meaning spacebing) sounds pretty cumbersome
and more efficient to me.

I don't really buy into the claim that spacebed users have actually
understood how dwm's tagging is supposed to work. Having said this, I
have never used spacebed.

But I don't care about the existence of spacebed either as long as dwm
is not polluted with similar features.

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

That's not the point. The point is that having less than two window
management principles is not neccessary. If you need tags, layouts and
spacebing to organize your work, then you are using tagging incorrectly.

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

I agree with the first part of your sentence.

Best regards,
Anselm

PS: I'm back btw.
Received on Tue Feb 18 2014 - 15:10:38 CET