3 ms·

I haven’t used a Linux desktop environment for many years now, so maybe there’s some nuance I’m not understanding, but virtual desktops have been a first class

I haven’t used a Linux desktop environment for many years now, so maybe there’s some nuance I’m not understanding, but virtual desktops have been a first class part of the macOS UI for many years. Swiping between them is only delayed by the default animation speed of that aspect of the window manager, and generally meant to match trackpad gestures and provide inertia consistent with other gestures. Trying to understand how this relates to a tiling WM, I’m wondering if the virtual desktop in dedicated tiling WMs concept goes beyond multiple instances of the display and has arbitrary widths (or single dimension spaces)? That does sound nice for some ways I’d want a tiling WM, but it’s not what I’ve previously thought I’d want in one where I might have a grid with non-uniform x/y divisions. Like it sounds very confusing to have a layout such as: a a b b c a a b b c a a d d e And to treat anything besides `a` as a “desktop” even if they’re variable width.

riquito 4y ago
As an example, afaik, fullscreen apps create something else, like a temporary virtual desktop, and you can't assign keybindings to those since they are transient. The default animation is also a dealbraker if you plan on switching continuously desktop
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  I also don’t like either the animation speed or the default full screen behavior. You can configure the animations to be much faster, and use opt+click for a normal full screen window. These are design decisions I don’t prefer, but they definitely don’t suggest virtual desktops aren’t a first class consideration. They’re a first class consideration which don’t match our preferences, sure.
cookiengineer 4y ago
The point why i3 / sway on Linux are used so much is not that they have a specific layouting concept. It's because they let the user decide what layout and how many virtual desktops they need. I usually have 10+ virtual desktops, because I use 3 screens, and each of them has a different set of virtual desktops - which are also not bound to a specific screen and can be moved to another screen just as easily. If I need a new virtual desktop on the fly, I just create one without any repercussions for the rest of the layout (or stack). And I think that's the key concept of tiling WMs: user choice. On MacOS and Windows, on the other hand, I don't see a chance of this working anyhow. The virtual desktops there are usually just a single stack behind the scenes, and they are not per screen, so working with those platforms and expensive window manager tools has been always a pain for me. The fullscreen mode of Apps alone is just so botched, no way this is gonna work failsafe with a third-party window manager that is reverse engineering the unofficial, breaking, APIs.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  > On MacOS and Windows [...] the virtual desktops there are usually just a single stack behind the scenes, and they are not per screen I'm not using a mac anymore, but last time I checked, this wasn't true. You could have per-screen virtual desktops, meaning you could have screen 1's virtual desktop stay put while you switch desktops on screen 2. The setting was easily accessible, too. In Settings -> Mission Control IIRC.

riquito 4y ago

As an example, afaik, fullscreen apps create something else, like a temporary virtual desktop, and you can't assign keybindings to those since they are transient. The default animation is also a dealbraker if you plan on switching continuously desktop

eyelidlessness 4y ago
I also don’t like either the animation speed or the default full screen behavior. You can configure the animations to be much faster, and use opt+click for a normal full screen window. These are design decisions I don’t prefer, but they definitely don’t suggest virtual desktops aren’t a first class consideration. They’re a first class consideration which don’t match our preferences, sure.

cookiengineer 4y ago

The point why i3 / sway on Linux are used so much is not that they have a specific layouting concept. It's because they let the user decide what layout and how many virtual desktops they need. I usually have 10+ virtual desktops, because I use 3 screens, and each of them has a different set of virtual desktops - which are also not bound to a specific screen and can be moved to another screen just as easily. If I need a new virtual desktop on the fly, I just create one without any repercussions for the rest of the layout (or stack). And I think that's the key concept of tiling WMs: user choice. On MacOS and Windows, on the other hand, I don't see a chance of this working anyhow. The virtual desktops there are usually just a single stack behind the scenes, and they are not per screen, so working with those platforms and expensive window manager tools has been always a pain for me. The fullscreen mode of Apps alone is just so botched, no way this is gonna work failsafe with a third-party window manager that is reverse engineering the unofficial, breaking, APIs.

vladvasiliu 4y ago
> On MacOS and Windows [...] the virtual desktops there are usually just a single stack behind the scenes, and they are not per screen I'm not using a mac anymore, but last time I checked, this wasn't true. You could have per-screen virtual desktops, meaning you could have screen 1's virtual desktop stay put while you switch desktops on screen 2. The setting was easily accessible, too. In Settings -> Mission Control IIRC.