Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The main sources of code/documentation are located here:
https://github.com/BurntSushi/openbox-multihead
https://github.com/BurntSushi/pager-multihead
https://github.com/BurntSushi/pytyle3
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124331
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124528
Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 8:23
Yes indeed.
I don't know if they are of any help, since it is a completely different
project, but the i3 window manager allows per monitor desktops aswell.
Original comment by nime1...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 8:26
if it is of any help**** (referring to i3, sorry for double post)
Original comment by nime1...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 8:26
I tried it out and I don't understand what are the benefits of having a
separate workspace on each monitor, compared to the panel_monitor = all option
in tint2.
You can use this option with any EWMH-compliant window manager (e.g. vanilla
openbox or xfwm). It gives you a separate instance of tint2 on each monitor.
Each taskbar should display only the windows that are located on that monitor,
based on their position. There will still be one workspace visible in all
monitors, and you can still switch workspaces. As far as I can tell, this
offers almost the same benefits as openbox-multihead plus the advantage of
switching workspaces. The only drawback is that the Alt-TAB switcher still
cycles through the windows from all monitors. But then, why not fix the
switcher to list only the windows from the current monitor, based on the mouse
position?
Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 9:00
I did not mean to sound negative. If it is also a tiling window manager, of
course it has other benefits.
But if it does not follow EWMH, it might be difficult for us to handle it,
because it require special treatment of each such window manager. As a side
effect, the code could also break for other EWMH-compliant window managers.
Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 9:17
Once I get home from work I'll explain. Thanks
Original comment by nime1...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 9:17
Hi again
I didn't mean that you should support i3, I merely meant looking at the i3
source code could perhaps be a help.
Anyway
Separate monitor desktops are really important to me. I often work with two
monitors, with the primary monitor being the "main" monitor, on which I do my
work, and the side monitor being a "support" monitor, on which I have stuff
like documentation, a web browser etc. on different workspaces. Per monitor
desktops allow me to switch what's being displayed on the "support monitor"
without disturbing the workflow on the "main" monitor.
Hope that made sense.
But of course, I don't know how hard this would be to implement. I'm not a
programmmer, sadly. Not yet anyway.
Original comment by nime1...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 12:31
I think I understand your workflow, but I still don't see the difference
between using openbox-multihead vs. normal openbox + tint2 in panel_monitor =
all.
Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 4:05
If I use normal Openbox I can't switch desktops on one monitor only. I can only
do it on both monitors at the same time, so my workflow gets disrupted.
If I use openbox-multihead + tint2 with panel_monitor = all I get this (I made
a webm recording):
http://webmshare.com/done/34Gnq (sorry for bad quality, might want to use
fullscreen)
As you can see, tint2 will only show windows on the monitor where the mouse is.
I can't see all the window titles.
Hope I made sense
Original comment by nime1...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 4:43
openbox-multihead + tint2 with panel_monitor = all will not work.
Normal openbox + tint2 with panel_monitor = all should work. Attaching a video
of what it does. Isn't this the same thing that openbox-multihead tries to
accomplish?
Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 5:24
Attachments:
In any case, modifying tint2 for openbox-multihead is not trivial, and at the
moment I am not sure anyone has time to do it :(
Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 5:31
Fair enough, thanks for listening anyways!
Original comment by nime1...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2015 at 5:35
Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com
on 1 Feb 2015 at 5:59
Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com
on 1 Feb 2015 at 11:57
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
nime1...@gmail.com
on 22 Jan 2015 at 6:16