3 ms·

> Implement multi-monitor correctly, that is by assigning each workspace to a virtual screen. Especially make sure that attaching and detaching new monitors lik

by new23d 6y ago

> Implement multi-monitor correctly, that is by assigning each workspace to a virtual screen. Especially make sure that attaching and detaching new monitors like video projectors works during operation and does the right thing. Also provide support for rotated monitors. My wishlist would be to have this go further and be aware of inter-monitor, relative positioning as well. For example, I use the ⊢ layout (one rotated monitor on the left, one straight monitor right in front) and it's usually an unsatisfactory experience tiling windows for productivity. Things I do on the vertically oriented monitor on the left are mostly reading documents or watching logs.

chrismorgan 6y ago
What you’re asking for feels like the antithesis of each workspace being assigned to a virtual screen, which says “these are physically disjoint spaces”. You seem to be seeking a move command that’s willing to violate this abstraction, penetrating workspace boundaries. (Or if not, I’m not sure what you could mean; floating windows are the only other case I can think of that could be affected in any way.) The only principled way I can see it working would be if you defined another nesting level above workspaces, so that screens were rigid splits on the greater part. This could probably work, but it doesn’t feel right to me. Certainly I never had the slightest desire for anything like this when I used two or mostly three monitors. I treated one as primary working space, one as secondary (mostly for communications), and one for things I might want to keep an eye on in the background from time to time. Occasionally I’d want to switch a window between the first two screens, but I would always want to use a workspace-shifting command for that; never (not once) would I have desired a move command. Very seldom indeed would windows shift to or from the third screen—they’d start there, live out their neglected lives there, and perish there at my pleasure. I’m interested to hear what you have in mind.
- new23d 6y ago
  Your assessment is accurate. I have realised I may be asking for something that is indeed the _antithesis_ for this project. For me though, the two monitors are just one screen which I should have total flexibility over. And workspaces are a way to switch context -- to a different set of tasks. The ⊢ shaped arrangement is the result of a tendency towards more squarish (than wide-screen) canvas. I still manage to find 16:10s (as opposed to 16:9s) in that vain.
toddnni 6y ago
i3 is great and it's almost a must for my productivity nowadays. However, I would highlight, that it's ability to work in multi-monitor is huge selling point. You would like to show something from an another screen, plug the cable, press suitable hotkey, and the workspace, that you were just working on, jumps to the new display. No need to move windows. You go back to your desk and plug in the laptop. The workspaces will automatically jump to the monitors, per your config. Next, you run to a meeting, the very same workspaces collapse back to laptop's monitor automatically. There was no need to touch windows in any of these scenarios, And no more "I forgot the browser windows to the attached display" that has happened with some other systems.

by new23d 6y ago

chrismorgan 6y ago

What you’re asking for feels like the antithesis of each workspace being assigned to a virtual screen, which says “these are physically disjoint spaces”. You seem to be seeking a move command that’s willing to violate this abstraction, penetrating workspace boundaries. (Or if not, I’m not sure what you could mean; floating windows are the only other case I can think of that could be affected in any way.) The only principled way I can see it working would be if you defined another nesting level above workspaces, so that screens were rigid splits on the greater part. This could probably work, but it doesn’t feel right to me. Certainly I never had the slightest desire for anything like this when I used two or mostly three monitors. I treated one as primary working space, one as secondary (mostly for communications), and one for things I might want to keep an eye on in the background from time to time. Occasionally I’d want to switch a window between the first two screens, but I would always want to use a workspace-shifting command for that; never (not once) would I have desired a move command. Very seldom indeed would windows shift to or from the third screen—they’d start there, live out their neglected lives there, and perish there at my pleasure. I’m interested to hear what you have in mind.

new23d 6y ago
Your assessment is accurate. I have realised I may be asking for something that is indeed the _antithesis_ for this project. For me though, the two monitors are just one screen which I should have total flexibility over. And workspaces are a way to switch context -- to a different set of tasks. The ⊢ shaped arrangement is the result of a tendency towards more squarish (than wide-screen) canvas. I still manage to find 16:10s (as opposed to 16:9s) in that vain.

toddnni 6y ago

i3 is great and it's almost a must for my productivity nowadays. However, I would highlight, that it's ability to work in multi-monitor is huge selling point. You would like to show something from an another screen, plug the cable, press suitable hotkey, and the workspace, that you were just working on, jumps to the new display. No need to move windows. You go back to your desk and plug in the laptop. The workspaces will automatically jump to the monitors, per your config. Next, you run to a meeting, the very same workspaces collapse back to laptop's monitor automatically. There was no need to touch windows in any of these scenarios, And no more "I forgot the browser windows to the attached display" that has happened with some other systems.