Tim Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:08:24AM -0400, Scott Furt wrote:
>
>>The whole linux philosophy is to give configurability, even
>>at the cost of being a bit cryptic at times. :-)
>
>
> Is that so? What about the 'usability' philosophy? ;)
>
For me, the configurability helps m
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:24:54 +0930 Tim Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:08:24AM -0400, Scott Furt wrote:
> > The whole linux philosophy is to give configurability, even
> > at the cost of being a bit cryptic at times. :-)
> Is that so? What about the 'usability' philo
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:41:12AM -0500, xOr wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> > It just seems that some of the proposed config options are so obtuse and
> > subtle that the average man on the free unix might not understand it. For
>
> Heh, are you, by chance
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:08:24AM -0400, Scott Furt wrote:
> The whole linux philosophy is to give configurability, even
> at the cost of being a bit cryptic at times. :-)
Is that so? What about the 'usability' philosophy? ;)
>
> Heh, a configuration option is never going to be the bottle neck of the
> window manager. With blackbox, the bottleneck is the image rendering
> code, as fast as it is. :)
>
true. However, every option is roughly 20 lines of code. Plus a little more
memory as we store the option, some sta
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 12:03:57PM -0400, Chris Grossmann wrote:
> You're absolutely right, Derek.
>
> I credit Sean and Brad with all that they do (and have
> done).
>
> I use blackbox because it is lean and fast, and when a new
> version comes out, it is leaner and faster.
>
> Most of the
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:45:46 -0400
"Derek Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (ie: I think it should be easy enough
> for me to create a bbapp that will give me a task bar
> similar to that of Windows
That sounds positively horrible. Yet another example of
opinions that differ. =)
--
Rache
You're absolutely right, Derek.
I credit Sean and Brad with all that they do (and have
done).
I use blackbox because it is lean and fast, and when a new
version comes out, it is leaner and faster.
Most of the features/configurations I could really care less
about, but I'll say this: I'd ra
On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
> On Thu, Jun06,02 11:38, Chris Grossmann wrote:
>> Derek Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
>> > Yeah... further to this, to whom to we cater? The users, or the power
>> > users?
>> > The featureists, or the minimalists?
>>
>> The authors. :)
>>
>
On Thu, Jun06,02 11:38, Chris Grossmann wrote:
> Derek Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > Yeah... further to this, to whom to we cater? The users, or the power users?
> > The featureists, or the minimalists?
>
> The authors. :)
>
Maybe... but I don't think this is the case.
Right now
>
> For me... configurability is key (just last night, I switched from row
> placement to column placement, and I'm much happier!), and it helps when the
> developers choose sane defaults, as if I don't understand an option (and
> don't feel like RTFM) then I'll leave the defaults. Other times, I
>
> hmm... I guess my complaint isn't so much about getting it back to it's
> original place... but more about consistency. I really like the ideal of
> having fully maximized windows unable to move, but I'll leave that up to you
> guys to decide :).
>
this "consistency" is not shared by any of
On Thu, Jun06,02 08:07, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > I think I have to agree with Tim on this, at least to a
> > certain extent. As a semi-geek, I rely on my hubbie to get
> > me through complex installs and I'm convinced that he would
> > be less than appreciative if I could not even insta
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:04:16AM -0500, Rachel Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:41:12 -0500
> "xOr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
> > > > I, for one, see no problem wit
On Thu, Jun06,02 07:57, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > Hmm... since I never use H/V Maximization... I didnt' really consider those.
> > To be honest, if the snap-to-edge-while-resizing was implemented... that
> > would solve my problems. :) Otherwise, you could just provide an option 'No
> >
Stijn Hoop wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
>>>
Imho, for this sort of bog standard window behaviour, a sane default
should be picke
>
> I think I have to agree with Tim on this, at least to a
> certain extent. As a semi-geek, I rely on my hubbie to get
> me through complex installs and I'm convinced that he would
> be less than appreciative if I could not even install my own
> window manager without help. =) Personally, I'd r
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:41:12 -0500
"xOr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
> > > I, for one, see no problem with this config item
> > > creep. :) They add enormous amounts of flexibility,
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> > > Imho, for this sort of bog standard window behaviour, a sane default
> > > should be picked, and kept. Otherwise (
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> > > Imho, for this sort of bog standard window behaviour, a sane default
> > > should be picked, and kept. Otherwise (
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> > Imho, for this sort of bog standard window behaviour, a sane default
> > should be picked, and kept. Otherwise (that is, after feature freeze), we
> > might get config item creep!
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 11:47:26PM +0930, Tim Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 08:51:39AM -0500, xOr wrote:
> > > I see no reason why I would want to move a maxmimized window, as moving it
> > > puts some of the windows off screen. I propose that maximized windows should
> > > not be moveabl
On Thu, Jun06,02 08:55, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:08:11 -0400
> "Derek Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I see no reason why I would want to move a maxmimized window, as moving
> > it puts some of the windows off screen. I propose that maximized windows
> > should
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 08:51:39AM -0500, xOr wrote:
> > I see no reason why I would want to move a maxmimized window, as moving it
> > puts some of the windows off screen. I propose that maximized windows should
> > not be moveable (config option?).
>
> There is no way that would fly for a large
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:08:11 -0400
"Derek Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see no reason why I would want to move a maxmimized window, as moving
> it puts some of the windows off screen. I propose that maximized windows
> should not be moveable (config option?).
I can think of a few. I
On Thu, Jun06,02 08:51, xOr wrote:
> > I see no reason why I would want to move a maxmimized window, as moving it
> > puts some of the windows off screen. I propose that maximized windows should
> > not be moveable (config option?).
>
> There is no way that would fly for a large number of users.
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:08:11AM -0400, Derek Cunningham wrote:
> On Wed, Jun05,02 23:45, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
> > > will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turn
On Wed, Jun05,02 23:45, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
> > Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
> > will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off after the resize).
> > However, if I maximize the window, then MOVE i
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 11:45:53PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
> > Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
> > will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off after the resize).
> > However, if I maximize the wind
>>
>> Opaque resizing would be really cool...
>
> That would be horribly slow, as the app's contents would have to be
> redrawn constantly.. With a move, they dont change, in a resize, they
> do.
>
yeah, opaque resizing is a serious bitch to get right.
On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote:
> Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
> will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off after the resize).
> However, if I maximize the window, then MOVE it, maximization is not turned
> off. For consistency sake, wou
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 01:54:34AM -0400, Derek Cunningham wrote:
> On Thu, Jun06,02 17:50, Matt Wilson wrote:
> > > ok... another thought. Would it be desired to have resizing snap to the
> > > screen (well, the struct) edges?
This is a neet idea, but how would you implement it with windows that
On Thu, Jun06,02 17:50, Matt Wilson wrote:
> > ok... another thought. Would it be desired to have resizing snap to the
> > screen (well, the struct) edges?
>
> agreed, that would make a lot of sense (not to mention be very useful)
>
> also, how about opaque resizing, like opaque moving?
>
> Mat
> ok... another thought. Would it be desired to have resizing snap to the
> screen (well, the struct) edges?
agreed, that would make a lot of sense (not to mention be very useful)
also, how about opaque resizing, like opaque moving?
Matt.
Hmm... so I notice that when you maximize, then resize, the maximize button
will re-maximize (ie: maximization was turned off after the resize).
However, if I maximize the window, then MOVE it, maximization is not turned
off. For consistency sake, wouldn't that be a good idea... it also seems
logi
35 matches
Mail list logo
