3 ms·

I have to agree. I don’t use a tiling window manager and I don’t consider myself an average user. The comment above was pretty insulting. Maybe I’m just a Ludd

I have to agree. I don’t use a tiling window manager and I don’t consider myself an average user. The comment above was pretty insulting. Maybe I’m just a Luddite that doesn’t know any better, but I’ve been quite happy without tiling windows for many years. Then again, I spend most of my time in a terminal in a tmux session. Maybe that counts. A common thread here is - your use case is not my use case. Many people are assuming that their workflow is the ‘one true way’. That not a healthy way to have a discussion.

oneeyedpigeon 8y ago
It might've been, but I agree with the core point: make window tiling an option. For the amount of time that it would take to implement, and the non-zero number of people that would benefit from it, it seems a glaring omission. Every OS should let you line up two windows side-by-side out of the box: this should be a minimum requirement of any window manager that lets you have windows at all.
- lloeki 8y ago
  Full screen mode is macOS native tiling mode, you can put two windows side by side and use as much real estate as possible (no menu bar nor title bars)
  - peatmoss 8y ago
    Eh, that’s pretty darned far from an i3 or Xmonad experience. It’s roughly as wrong as saying that the Gnome frameworks are just as good as Cocoa :-)
    - lloeki 8y ago
      I have used i3, awesomewm and Xmonad extensively for years so rest assured I wasn't implying anything like that ;) I was more like pointing out that macOS does allow for the following in some way out of the box: > Every OS should let you line up two windows side-by-side out of the box
      - oneeyedpigeon 8y ago
        Sorry, that really was only an example. I also didn’t say, or mean to imply, full-screen only. Every os should also let you line up windows top-to-bottom out of the box. Etc. Macos' approach of allowing one very specific combination of window arrangement, then trying to make a feature of it by calling it 'fullscreen' or 'side-by-side' (or whatever they call it) just doesn’t really cut it.

oneeyedpigeon 8y ago

It might've been, but I agree with the core point: make window tiling an option. For the amount of time that it would take to implement, and the non-zero number of people that would benefit from it, it seems a glaring omission. Every OS should let you line up two windows side-by-side out of the box: this should be a minimum requirement of any window manager that lets you have windows at all.

lloeki 8y ago
Full screen mode is macOS native tiling mode, you can put two windows side by side and use as much real estate as possible (no menu bar nor title bars)
- peatmoss 8y ago
  Eh, that’s pretty darned far from an i3 or Xmonad experience. It’s roughly as wrong as saying that the Gnome frameworks are just as good as Cocoa :-)
  - lloeki 8y ago
    I have used i3, awesomewm and Xmonad extensively for years so rest assured I wasn't implying anything like that ;) I was more like pointing out that macOS does allow for the following in some way out of the box: > Every OS should let you line up two windows side-by-side out of the box
    - oneeyedpigeon 8y ago
      Sorry, that really was only an example. I also didn’t say, or mean to imply, full-screen only. Every os should also let you line up windows top-to-bottom out of the box. Etc. Macos' approach of allowing one very specific combination of window arrangement, then trying to make a feature of it by calling it 'fullscreen' or 'side-by-side' (or whatever they call it) just doesn’t really cut it.