[dev] wmii: open new windows unfocused

[Dieter Plaetinck]

Hi, is there any way to start new clients without giving them focus?

Right now i use a workaround:

$app &
sleep 0.3s
wmiir xwrite /tag/sel/ctl 'select up'

Thanks.
Dieter

Re: [dev] wmii: open new windows unfocused

[hiro]

If you don't want to use sleep you can also listen for window creation
events in the virtual file system, but there's still an annoying
flicker.

Someone could try to patch wmii as to control window creation
differently, but I think noone here considered it worth it.

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dieter Plaetinck  wrote:
> Hi, is there any way to start new clients without giving them focus?
>
> Right now i use a workaround:
>
> $app &
> sleep 0.3s
> wmiir xwrite /tag/sel/ctl 'select up'
>
> Thanks.
> Dieter
>
>

Re: [dev] dwm: suckless way to monitor work hours

[markus schnalke]

[2009-09-01 10:07] Niklas Koponen 
> 
> Or better yet, has anybody already implemented this kind of tracking?

Just came across [0]. You may find this interesting.

[0] 
http://www.joachim-breitner.de/blog/index.php?url=archives/336-The-Automatic-Rule-Based-Time-Tracker.html


meillo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[dev] dwm number of clients pointless?

[Anselm R Garbe]

Anyone disagrees that the number of clients indicating recently
introduced to dwm-5.6+ is pointless and should be removed again?

Kind regards,
Anselm

Re: [dev] dwm number of clients pointless?

[Thayer Williams]

On Sep 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Anselm R Garbe  wrote:
> Anyone disagrees that the number of clients indicating recently
> introduced to dwm-5.6+ is pointless and should be removed again?

It's a nice feature for monocle mode, but I admit I don't see a reason
for it in any other mode.  If it's not kept for monocle mode, I'll just
go back to using the monocle count patch.

Re: [dev] dwm number of clients pointless?

[Antoni Grzymala]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:44:57 -0700, Thayer Williams 
wrote:

>> Anyone disagrees that the number of clients indicating recently
>> introduced to dwm-5.6+ is pointless and should be removed again?
> 
> It's a nice feature for monocle mode, but I admit I don't see a reason
> for it in any other mode.  If it's not kept for monocle mode, I'll just
> go back to using the monocle count patch.

Agreed, should stay for monocle. May just as well go for other modes.

Re: [dev] dwm number of clients pointless?

[Kurt H Maier]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Anselm R Garbe  wrote:
> Anyone disagrees that the number of clients indicating recently
> introduced to dwm-5.6+ is pointless and should be removed again?

It's crucial for monocle, but wastes space in other layouts.



-- 
# Kurt H Maier

Re: [dev] dwm number of clients pointless?

[pancake]

I'm using it also for my recently updated clientspertag patch (see web)

On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Thayer Williams  wrote:


On Sep 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Anselm R Garbe  wrote:

Anyone disagrees that the number of clients indicating recently
introduced to dwm-5.6+ is pointless and should be removed again?


It's a nice feature for monocle mode, but I admit I don't see a reason
for it in any other mode.  If it's not kept for monocle mode, I'll  
just

go back to using the monocle count patch.

[dev] feature request: hide a/set client/s on key press

[Jorge Vargas]

Hello,

Recently I have been playing with a console client named "tilda"
(http://tilda.sourceforge.net/tildashots.php) it's main feature is
that if you press a key it will hide, which by the way is totally
broken with DWM as Tilda assumes you have only one instance of tilda
running. So it minimizes/deminimizes one window not all of them.
However I find this feature really nice. My main use case of it is as
follow.

I'm working on python web development so I normally have a local set
of temporal servers running (paster, mongodb, etc.) For this I find
the vertical split patch reay useful as I have 2 windows in one
tag top = browser, bottom = paster (with the server side errors) jump
to monocle to see it running jump to split view to see the server side
error. However when I get to 3 clients (mongo+paster+browser) things
get complicated which by the way I know it's the reason the vertical
patch never made it into the main tree.

So I was thinking wouldn't it be nice to have a key combo that will
hide from view all X clients that match certain criteria? This way you
could build command like hide all my gmail windows or hide all my
xterms in tag 3

PS: other than tilda is slow and ugly so I don't recommend it.

Re: [dev] feature request: hide a/set client/s on key press

[pancake]

Recheck the tagging concepts. This is what you are looking for. If you  
want a minimal tilda, check yeahconsole. It allows to embed other apps  
apart from xterm.


On Sep 14, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Jorge Vargas   
wrote:



Hello,

Recently I have been playing with a console client named "tilda"
(http://tilda.sourceforge.net/tildashots.php) it's main feature is
that if you press a key it will hide, which by the way is totally
broken with DWM as Tilda assumes you have only one instance of tilda
running. So it minimizes/deminimizes one window not all of them.
However I find this feature really nice. My main use case of it is as
follow.

I'm working on python web development so I normally have a local set
of temporal servers running (paster, mongodb, etc.) For this I find
the vertical split patch reay useful as I have 2 windows in one
tag top = browser, bottom = paster (with the server side errors) jump
to monocle to see it running jump to split view to see the server side
error. However when I get to 3 clients (mongo+paster+browser) things
get complicated which by the way I know it's the reason the vertical
patch never made it into the main tree.

So I was thinking wouldn't it be nice to have a key combo that will
hide from view all X clients that match certain criteria? This way you
could build command like hide all my gmail windows or hide all my
xterms in tag 3

PS: other than tilda is slow and ugly so I don't recommend it.

Re: [dev] dwm number of clients pointless?

[Anders Andersson]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Antoni Grzymala  wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:44:57 -0700, Thayer Williams 
> wrote:
>
>>> Anyone disagrees that the number of clients indicating recently
>>> introduced to dwm-5.6+ is pointless and should be removed again?
>>
>> It's a nice feature for monocle mode, but I admit I don't see a reason
>> for it in any other mode.  If it's not kept for monocle mode, I'll just
>> go back to using the monocle count patch.
>
> Agreed, should stay for monocle. May just as well go for other modes.

If you're keeping it for monocle mode, I'd say leave it in there for
the rest as well. It's cleaner, both source-code-wise and visually
when you change between modes.

// pipe

Re: [dev] Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org

[Amit Uttamchandani]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:26:55PM -0600, Jack Woehr wrote:
> And for your delectation: Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of
> suckless.org 
> 
> 
 
Definitely an interesting read. Thanks for the post.

Just curious as to the arguments against OO programming. All the classes
I have taken in uni always trumpet OO. I have been using it ever since
but I do agree that it can get out of hand at times.

My question is that, there are some approaches that 'seem'
easier/logical to implement with OO, how does one approach this in a not
OO way?

Hope that made some sense..