On 16.12.2011 19:13, Alexander Yakushev wrote: > I use transparent wiboxes instead of conky. Here's how it look (top > screenshot): http://www.linux.org.ru/gallery/6455144.png . > > And with all my experience of configuring and using them my advise is - > don't do that unless really sure. Here's the list of disadvantages: > - makes awesome loading slower. Consider that any time screen resolution > changes awesome gets restarted so it can get really annoying. > - when you switch between tags these widgets become acid lime rectangles > for a moment. I got used to it but it also annoys and I don't know how > to counter that behavior.
Uhm, what? Tell me more. Could you perhaps make a screenshot / make-a-video-and-extract-a-screenshot for that? How do you make your wibox' background transparent? > And the list of advantages: > + wiboxes can be dynamic - you can click on them, scroll mousewheel on > them etc. > + easier to program complex behavior than using conky and shell scripts. > And more flexible plus all code in one place.\ > + you can do "Me-and-Awesome-are-cool" look *puts the shades on*. > > So the choice is yours but think twice before choosing it over conky. > > Regards, > Alexander > > On 12/16/2011 05:51 PM, Daniel Martí wrote: >> Conky is the easy way to go, yes, but since Awesome has its own widgets, >> why use conky? I think it would be better and easier to just use >> awesome. > > -- "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
