On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:48:57 -0400, Manolo MartÃnez <man...@austrohungaro.com> wrote: > On 04/05/12 at 10:44am, Kurt H Maier wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:24:20AM -0600, Jeremy Jackins wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:12 AM, KIMURA Masaru <hiyuh.r...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> however in my opinion a system tray is > > > >> not necessary and should not be added to mainline. > > > > > > > > if you don't mind my asking, explain why? > > > > just curious. > > > > > > > > > > Necessity needs justification, not the other way around. > > > > > > > This is correct, but in this case there's a simple answer anyway. > > > > System trays are a bandaid meant to address flaws in a faulty interface > > metaphorr: you don't need a quick-access tool if you're not using a > > stacked/floating window layout. > > > > (I don't use systrays, but still:) How so? If you have, say, six windows per > tag quick access might be useful. One can have a use policy that avoids this, > but such use policies are not enforced by a tiling interface. >
One might argue that, having that many windows per tag, no systray is going to making your workflow easier. I'm using this systray patch for a couple of reasons, and while it does its job, I don't think it fits what dwm proposes to do. -- J. Missao
