4 ms·

As someone still using Window Maker, these mini-DockApps are a a reason why I keep using it. The dock is on the left or right, so it does not take the more prec

As someone still using Window Maker, these mini-DockApps are a a reason why I keep using it. The dock is on the left or right, so it does not take the more precious vertical screenspace. And dockapps are reasonably sized (64x64 pixels by default) and thus can show useful information. I am especially fond of one showing CPU activity like blobs in a lava lamp (wmforkplop). I also got very used to the way WM does virtual desktops, though KDE can be configured to behave nearly identical by now.

Zardoz84 10y ago
what does WM that is special with virtual desktops?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Typically thy're arranged in a flat space, think of them extending left and right, logically, of your monitor(s). The Windowlist shows all open windows. You can pin it, then walk through the list if you've lost track of something. Windows can be pinned to all desktops. Nothing I've seen in 30 years comes close.
  - onli 10y ago
    Sounds to me exactly like functionality IceWM offers.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      A number of the older WMs are not entirely dissimilar. Some aren't, though. FVWM for example has a grid rather than flat layout, which I find confusing (you might go left/right, you might go up/down). The boxes generally struck me as pretty good -- Blackbox I think most especially. KDE comes close to WindowMaker in functionality (I've been watching/using that occasionally since ~1999), but never quite seems to get it right. KDE's windowlist, for example, isn't pinnable, and if you're walking that, you have to re-open, and re-acquire your current working spot, for each window you're traversing. That extra bit of friction rubs me raw every damned time. The crazy thing about WindowMaker, for me, is how for such a ... not particulalry beautiful* desktop (though I find its asthetics completely acceptable), it's so damned useful. It's either exceptionally well designed ... or I've just got it cold-welded to my muscle memory. I couldn't honestly tell you which. (Though I think its design is particularly good, with its design stability a major part of that.)
  - lillesvin 10y ago
    I must be misunderstanding something because from what you describe it sounds like how Gnome, i3 and EvilWM and many others handle virtual desktops.
badsectoracula 10y ago
A unique feature to Window Maker's virtual desktops is the clip. The clip basically allows you to create a kind of separate dock per virtual desktop so if you have a separate VD per type of task (e.g. web, chat, code, art, media, games, etc) you can put the relevant launchers on the clip instead of the dock and leave only the global stuff (like docklets and utilities like a terminal, notepad, file browser, etc) in the dock. I actually ignored that for years, until i decided to try it out and found it much easier to work with since i could create many more launchers than if i had to fit everything in the regular dock (of course i could also use drawers - which sadly are not yet supported by the clip - but i think having the launchers per virtual desktop is better).

Zardoz84 10y ago

what does WM that is special with virtual desktops?

dredmorbius 10y ago
Typically thy're arranged in a flat space, think of them extending left and right, logically, of your monitor(s). The Windowlist shows all open windows. You can pin it, then walk through the list if you've lost track of something. Windows can be pinned to all desktops. Nothing I've seen in 30 years comes close.
- onli 10y ago
  Sounds to me exactly like functionality IceWM offers.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    A number of the older WMs are not entirely dissimilar. Some aren't, though. FVWM for example has a grid rather than flat layout, which I find confusing (you might go left/right, you might go up/down). The boxes generally struck me as pretty good -- Blackbox I think most especially. KDE comes close to WindowMaker in functionality (I've been watching/using that occasionally since ~1999), but never quite seems to get it right. KDE's windowlist, for example, isn't pinnable, and if you're walking that, you have to re-open, and re-acquire your current working spot, for each window you're traversing. That extra bit of friction rubs me raw every damned time. The crazy thing about WindowMaker, for me, is how for such a ... not particulalry beautiful* desktop (though I find its asthetics completely acceptable), it's so damned useful. It's either exceptionally well designed ... or I've just got it cold-welded to my muscle memory. I couldn't honestly tell you which. (Though I think its design is particularly good, with its design stability a major part of that.)
- lillesvin 10y ago
  I must be misunderstanding something because from what you describe it sounds like how Gnome, i3 and EvilWM and many others handle virtual desktops.

badsectoracula 10y ago

A unique feature to Window Maker's virtual desktops is the clip. The clip basically allows you to create a kind of separate dock per virtual desktop so if you have a separate VD per type of task (e.g. web, chat, code, art, media, games, etc) you can put the relevant launchers on the clip instead of the dock and leave only the global stuff (like docklets and utilities like a terminal, notepad, file browser, etc) in the dock. I actually ignored that for years, until i decided to try it out and found it much easier to work with since i could create many more launchers than if i had to fit everything in the regular dock (of course i could also use drawers - which sadly are not yet supported by the clip - but i think having the launchers per virtual desktop is better).