On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:38 PM, <sta...@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > * Michael <mi...@netspark.org> [2009-05-24 21:55]: >> Although concept of one page per instance isn't very useful for me right >> now. I use dwm, and I want web page be full screen, but if I'm not in >> monocle mode, pages get shrunk in a half if there is more than one page, >> which is bad, and monocle mode isn't useful because I want my terminal >> windows be tiled. > > With tabs you can view only one rendered document at a time. If you have > multiple instances (e.g. with uzbl), you can send the inactive ones to > some other (dedicated or whatever) tag. > > Then, to get some inactive to active is pretty much the same amount of > keystrokes like you would need with tabs, isn't it? > >> I would be happy with buffers concept, like in Vim - you see only one >> buffer in a time, but able to switch between, but probably it isn't what >> developers want. > > I very much like what uzbl devs propose. It moves from the concept of > > - 'Here is everything I do with a browser' (e.g. check mails, debug web > appl, read news, watch videos ... ) to > > - 'Here is everything I need for doing X' (doing X being e.g. writing a > paper, web development, leisure activities, etc.'. > > For me, the second way of doing things is much better. I do use multiple > buffers within Vim but only when all the files are related -- it enables > me, for example, to copy across documents.
This is because (l)unix provides an awful environment for multi-tasking, the proper solution is to provide a sane way to copy data from one application to another. AFAIK vim has ways to use the X copy buffer, but the whole thing stinks. uriel > For documents belonging to > unrelated tasks, other multiplexing methods are better suited, e.g. > different terminals, screen, dvtm or whatever. And dwm helps to manage this > stuff the right way. > > >> Another solution would be create tag for unwanted pages and bring one >> (or few) of them to front when I need them, but unfortunately, to make >> such things automatic dwm needs some kind of remote control, which is >> not implemented yet (and probably won't). > > :o) > should have read this before my suggestion in the first paragraph. > > btw, I still haven't given a try to uzbl. Shame on me :o) > > -- > cheers > stanio_ > >
