| |||||||||||||
Window manager varietyWindow manager varietyPosted Apr 19, 2012 10:10 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)In reply to: Window manager variety by kleptog Parent article: LFCS 2012: X and Wayland I do not see how the "perfect size" for an arbitrary window can possibly be within the window manager's capability to determine, unless the display device is so pixel-limited that the only sane size for any window is "fullscreen".
(Log in to post comments)
Window manager variety Posted Apr 20, 2012 8:56 UTC (Fri) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
> I do not see how the "perfect size" for an arbitrary window can possibly be within the window manager's capability to determine, unless the display device is so pixel-limited that the only sane size for any window is "fullscreen".
Hmm, my only clue comes from Java's Swing UI toolkit, where everything is a tree of nested components, each component having a "minimal" and "preferred" sizes. The containers derive their minimal and preferred sizes from the contained components and the layout manager in use. There is even an operation called "pack" that resizes the window according to the preferred sizes of its components. A tiling manager could use this information but it required cooperation from the toolkit.
Window manager variety Posted Apr 20, 2012 17:40 UTC (Fri) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
>> I do not see how the "perfect size" for an arbitrary window can possibly be within the window manager's capability to determine, unless the display device is so pixel-limited that the only sane size for any window is "fullscreen".
>Hmm, my only clue comes from Java's Swing UI toolkit, where everything is a tree of nested components, each component having a "minimal" and "preferred" sizes. The containers derive their minimal and preferred sizes from the contained components and the layout manager in use. There is even an operation called "pack" that resizes the window according to the preferred sizes of its components. A tiling manager could use this information but it required cooperation from the toolkit.
So the "perfect size" is determined by the application developer? No thanks.
Window manager variety Posted Apr 21, 2012 20:47 UTC (Sat) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
Looks like I confused a lot of people with the phrase "perfect size". What I was referring to was that I could have 4-8 terminals open and they would automatically all be visible without overlapping without me having to do anything.
That said, I didn't realise the tiling window manager was such an old concept. I hadn't seen it before though, I certainly haven't managed to get my default Ubuntu install to do it.
Window manager variety Posted Apr 21, 2012 21:14 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That said, I didn't realise the tiling window manager was such an old concept. Well, as I've said not only they are old, they were explicitly rejected. Windows developers apparently liked them (as you do) and though it'll be Windows advantage. Ha! The supposed “inability to create overlapped windows” was one of the more frequent complaints about Windows 1.0. It's obvious for the programmer that it was made explicitly (you had the ability to create and use any number of overlapping dialog windows in Windows 1.0, after all) but Joe Average (including Joe Magazine Observer Average) was quite literally unable to even imagine that someone will create something like this intentionally! Of course the concept was quickly buried never to be seen on mainstream system again.
Window manager variety Posted Apr 21, 2012 21:30 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
there are a lot of things that have been 'explicity rejected' by people in the past that are in common use today. It's not unusual for other things to change that make something that used to not be reasonable now become reasonable.
In the case of tiling window managers, one thing to remember is that the screen resolution when they were 'explicitly rejected' for windows 1.0 was 640x400, screens are a bit bigger today, so things that wouldn't work then can work now.
Also, you need to break your mindset that Microsoft is the ultimate authority on the Right Way to do everything
Window manager variety Posted Apr 21, 2012 23:12 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] there are a lot of things that have been 'explicity rejected' by people in the past that are in common use today. It's not unusual for other things to change that make something that used to not be reasonable now become reasonable. Sure. But before you'll try to resurrect some old concept you need to find out why it failed in the past. If it's some technical limitation then it may be overcome, if it's something psychological then situation is much harder. For example a lot of guys present iPhone (or sometimes iPad) as reincarnation of Newton, and yes, the devices look similar. But the difference is extreme: Newton was built around the handwriting recognition. It was it's cornerstone, everything else was built around this idea. And it just so happen that this idea does not work. iPhone/iPad looks similar, but they don't include stylus and don't use handwriting recognition. At all. You can as well say that contemporary planes are just a reimplementation of the Daedalus creation. In the case of tiling window managers, one thing to remember is that the screen resolution when they were 'explicitly rejected' for windows 1.0 was 640x400, screens are a bit bigger today, so things that wouldn't work then can work now. Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it. The biggest problem with tiling managers is perception of the lost control. People want to control their windows, not have them arranged automatically. Perhaps it's possible to create tiling manager which will feel natural, but I'm not holding my breath. Also, you need to break your mindset that Microsoft is the ultimate authority on the Right Way to do everything. Of course not! Microsoft is not perfect, but Microsoft is what people use. For better or for worse Windows defines expectations - simply because it's the most popular UI. Even so… Microsoft tries very hard to destroy itself for the last five years or so. People hated (and still hate) their Ribbon - but apparently not enough to switch to something else. Perhaps Metro will finally push them over the edge? This gives newcomes a chance. But I doubt something as radically different as tiling WM will be accepted by Joe Average even in the wake of Metro fisco.
Window manager variety Posted Apr 22, 2012 0:46 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it. The biggest problem with tiling managers is perception of the lost control. People want to control their windows, not have them arranged automatically. Perhaps it's possible to create tiling manager which will feel natural, but I'm not holding my breath.
you are looking at things backwards.
If the talk about tiling window managers was only from people creating them, saying "this is what people should use" (the type of talk you see coming out of the Gnome or Unity projects for example), then you would have good reasons to point out past attempts and say "No, people don't really want that, here's why"
But when the statements are from people who are using a tiling window manager saying "It's the best thign I've ever used", then you should just shut up because otherwise you are telling people "no, you don't really like what you think you like"
As for Microsoft, If you really like what they do so much, go use it and let those of us who want some variation use what we want. We are used to having features as default (a desktop pager for example) that just aren't available (or only available via a third party hack) on Microsoft desktops.
The great thing is that on Linux, we don't force everyone to use the same thing. Even the distros that have a primary default allow you to switch to one of the other options (and in some cases, like Kubuntu, it's only barely a second class option)
Window manager variety Posted Apr 22, 2012 11:40 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] But when the statements are from people who are using a tiling window manager saying "It's the best thign I've ever used", then you should just shut up because otherwise you are telling people "no, you don't really like what you think you like" Nice strawman. I said, quite literally: the concept was quickly buried never to be seen on mainstream system again and today they are in position similar to other old rejected technologies (such as Acme or FFM): some old-timers still use them and even few newcomers are choosing them but most users don't know about them and don't want to know about them. How exactly this went from this to "no, you don't really like what you think you like" I'll never understand. It's quite obvious that I'm not talking about individual preferences here. We are used to having features as default (a desktop pager for example) that just aren't available (or only available via a third party hack) on Microsoft desktops. Right. But mindshare of people like you is shrinking and it's not clear where is the natural limit of this shrinkage. If some tools are only used by people in some small group then it may find out few years down the road that they just don't have the hardware they need and they can't run the software they want (while staying compatible with the rest of the world). History is littered by examples: Lisp machines (they were all the rage back in the day), RiscOS (ARM is quite popular today and you can even run RiscOS today on PandaBoard… but how many former RiscOS users actually do that?), Amiga ST, Atari, etc. The great thing is that on Linux, we don't force everyone to use the same thing. Even the distros that have a primary default allow you to switch to one of the other options (and in some cases, like Kubuntu, it's only barely a second class option) This is greatest strength of Linux and also is greatest weakness. RiscOS fate looks more and more real as time goes on. There was time not so long ago when people used Linux en masses in the university. Today they use MacOS instead. Even if it does not have a tiling window manager.
Window manager variety Posted Apr 22, 2012 17:02 UTC (Sun) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
>But mindshare of people like you is shrinking and it's not clear where is the natural limit of this shrinkage.
Tiling window managers have recently seen a spike in usage, due (I believe) to the sudden destruction of GNOME by folks like you, who argue "users don't want to know about that, so let's stop supporting it" and remove essential features.
There is no question that tiling window managers are more efficient. Nowadays the most common complaint about window management is that wide screens are too wide to read on, and it's a PITA to manually resize windows to look nice on them. So, in Windows 7 you can now drag windows to the sides of the screen, and they'll fill that half. So you can emulate tiling for its most common use case.
As for history, the furthest back I can remember tiling was in Windows 95. You could right-click on the title bar and click "tile". It was crap. Every window got roughly a square inch of screen space, you couldn't control which ones were visible, in what order, how much space to allocate. The default window decorations were still in place, and together they took up around half the screen area. So I wondered what the point of such a stupid feature was, and forgot about it until just now.
But nowadays, I have too much screen space for comfortable full-screen apps, no mouse (since this is a laptop), and I want my windows either 100% visible or 0%. So I've got a tiling window manager, and -now- I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I've showed it off to many people, and they all thought it was very cool (though they were Windows users and didn't have the option to try for themselves). I have never heard of anyone saying they were crap, or restrictive, or useless, until you.
Window manager variety Posted Apr 22, 2012 17:37 UTC (Sun) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
I think tiling windows managers are indeed a response to the fact that screen sizes are big enough now that you can comfortably fit 4-8 xterms on a screen and still be able to use them.
Fortunately things are not either/or. I have my xterms set to tile, because working with several machines at the same time it's useful to be able to see all the output next to each other at once, tabs just don't cut it. On the other hand, tiling makes less sense for the web browser or email. Hurray for configurability.
In my case since >80% of my windows are xterms it's more useful to have a tiling window manager that floats a few windows, than a floating window manager. But theoretically if a standard window manager had the option to enable tiling for a few applications you'd make 90% of tiling window manager users happy.
Judging by the comments on this thread though, I figure that's never going to happen.
BTW, there are tiling window managers for Windows, see the wikipedia article.
Window manager variety Posted Apr 22, 2012 17:48 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
"Tiling window managers have recently seen a spike in usage, due (I believe) to the sudden destruction of GNOME by folks like you"
Attributing to khim the decisions by GNOME developers is fair to neither since khim is not a GNOME developer and doesn't speak for them or even share their mindset in any real way.
"So, in Windows 7 you can now drag windows to the sides of the screen, and they'll fill that half. So you can emulate tiling for its most common use case."
Funny enough, so does GNOME which voids your earlier argument.
|
|||||||||||||