4.6: new windows now start on bottom

[Brian J. Tarricone-3]

On 07/13/2009 11:50 AM, Net Llama! wrote:
>>> Do let me know when you're finished going off on a tirade and
>>> insulting your userbase.
>> I only insult those who poison the mailing lists and community, and waste
>> the valuable time of our contributors.
>
> Thus far today, you're the only one who has poisoned anything, and
> you're choosing to waste your own time attacking multiple users who
> are attempting to provide feedback.

Er, *you're* the one who chose to pick a fight with me over an email
that *wasn't* in response to one of yours.  But feel free to ignore the
mailing list archives and believe otherwise.

But you're certainly correct that this is a complete waste of time.

Whether or not *certain* people are attempting to provide feedback -- at
least useful, constructive feedback -- is certainly debatable.

>> I'll say it again: this discussion will continue to go nowhere if certain
>> participants insist on adopting an attitude of entitlement.  If you don't
>> like how something works, that's fine!  It happens all the time.  But
>> repeatedly asserting "that sucks" and "that's pretty lame" and responding to
>> people with messages laced with sarcasm won't get you what you want (as has
>> occurred several times in this thread).  I can understand that a new
>> behavior that doesn't fit with your workflow can be disconcerting and
>> frustrating to get used to.  And maybe sometimes the change isn't the right
>> way to go.  But insisting that your way is right and demanding changes or
>> new options isn't going to get you what you want.  If you're fine with that
>> and are only here because you want to vent, I'm here to inform you that this
>> is not the place for it.
>
> At no time did I insist my way was right, nor did I demand changes or
> new options.

That was a general statement, not directed at you.

>  And for the record, I've likely been on this list before
> you were even an XFCE developer, so no I'm not here to vent.

Then... shut up?

> To refresh your memory, here's my original contribution to this thread:
> http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/xfce/2009-July/025538.html

So?

> No demands, no attacks, no poison. A simple comment, which went
> ignored by the developers until your attack on me this morning.

Again, I did not respond to any of your emails until your response to me.

> I can also go and point out the other threads in which I've
> contributed recently which have also failed to receive any response
> from anyone.  The evidence indicates that all you seem interested in
> doing is attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you, and ignoring
> everyone else.
>
> Its sad that XFCE has lost interest in its userbase if this is deemed
> acceptable behavior.  I've been using XFCE for over 10 years, but
> clearly no one cares about that.

Wow.  "Clearly" you should check the mailing list history and figure out
exactly who started this little digression between you and me over the
past couple hours.  It certainly isn't me.  (Big hint: my original reply
was to an email from Grant, not from you.  *You* chose to jump in at
that moment.)

But anyway, as you said, this is a complete waste of time.  I won't be
participating in this discussion any longer.

        -brian
_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Chris G-6]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:53:26AM -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Grant
> Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
> > Can anybody could recommend other window managers that work
> > well with XFCE desktop and panel?
>
> I'll second that request.
>
Well I have been muttering about returning to FVWM.  :-)

I'm not on either 'side' here but I do feel I'm caught in the
crossfire a bit.

I think there's two views:-

    The user just wants things to be easy to "work the way they always
    used to", (sort of).

    The developers want to go the 'right' (modern, fashionable) way.

OK, I'm biased, I'm a user in the above (so I am a bit on one side).
It does seem to me though that "the way things work" is an argument
used by the developers as if that is the end of the argument.  OK, if
something really isn't possible then it isn't possible but if
something that lots of people want doesn't fit into the current
'philosophy' the it seems to me that it's the philosphy that's wrong.

My pet problem on this front is having to use add-ons like Devils Pie
to get the window placements I want rather than it being built into
the window manager.

--
Chris Green

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Vincent T]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Chris G <cl@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:53:26AM -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Grant
> Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
> > Can anybody could recommend other window managers that work
> > well with XFCE desktop and panel?
>
> I'll second that request.
>

Well I have been muttering about returning to FVWM.  :-)

I'm not on either 'side' here but I do feel I'm caught in the
crossfire a bit.

I think there's two views:-

   The user just wants things to be easy to "work the way they always
   used to", (sort of).

   The developers want to go the 'right' (modern, fashionable) way.

OK, I'm biased, I'm a user in the above (so I am a bit on one side).
It does seem to me though that "the way things work" is an argument
used by the developers as if that is the end of the argument.  OK, if
something really isn't possible then it isn't possible but if
something that lots of people want doesn't fit into the current
'philosophy' the it seems to me that it's the philosphy that's wrong.

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but "a lot of people" so far is only based on three or so users requesting it in this thread. I'm perfectly happy with the regular behaviour, and I suppose more people are. Problem is, there is no way to tell exactly which option has most demand among all of Xfce's users, so it's up to the developers to choose what to do. They can take into account well-funded arguments, but statistics doesn't really help.

Also, what is the problem with using Devil's Pie? Isn't that made exactly for specialized use cases like this?
 

My pet problem on this front is having to use add-ons like Devils Pie
to get the window placements I want rather than it being built into
the window manager.

--
Chris Green

--
Vincent

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Grant Edwards-6]

On 2009-07-13, Chris G <cl@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:53:26AM -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Grant
>> Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>> > Can anybody could recommend other window managers that work
>> > well with XFCE desktop and panel?
>>
>> I'll second that request.

Here's a patch against 4.6.1 and the associated gentoo ebuild
that restores the previous behavior (the patch makes it so that
new windows start on top of the stack instead of on the bottom):

  ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-4.6.1-new_windows_on_top.patch
  ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-4.6.1-r1.ebuild

When I have more spare time, I'll try to figure out how to make
it either a run-time-configuration option or a "./configure
--enable" option. I think the former is the right way to go,
but since that suggestion has already been overruled by the
devs there doesn't seem to be much point in climbing the
learning curve when it comes to xfce configuration options. The
--enable method is ugly, but I already know how to do that. :)

Then, I guess we'll just maintain a forked version until we
find a different window manager.  

> Well I have been muttering about returning to FVWM.  :-)

I used fvwm for many, many years (until I started using XFCE).
Perhaps it is time to revisit fvwm.  I've almost got the XFCE
panel mailwatch plugin working the way I want it to, so
hopefully fvwm will play nice with the reset of XFCE.

> My pet problem on this front is having to use add-ons like
> Devils Pie to get the window placements I want rather than it
> being built into the window manager.

Particularly when up until a few months ago, xfwm4 did work the
way we wanted it to.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! My uncle Murray
                                  at               conquered Egypt in 53 B.C.
                               visi.com            And I can prove it too!!

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Grant Edwards-6]

On 2009-07-13, Vincent <mailinglists@...> wrote:

> Also, what is the problem with using Devil's Pie? Isn't that made exactly
> for specialized use cases like this?

There are several technical issues:

  At the moment, it has to be patched to get it to do what we
  want (the vanilla version doesn't have the action we're
  asking for).

  It doesn't _quite_ work right all the time, though I've not
  yet been able to predictably make it fail.

  It dies regularly (every few days) and has to be restarted
  manually.

  I find it visually annoying to have windows pop up behind the
  stack and then get raised.

  We've been told not to use it by the xfwm4 dev because it
  creates race conditions in the window manager.

But mostly it just seems like an ugly hack to fix a basic
issue with the window manager.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! I feel like I am
                                  at               sharing a ``CORN-DOG''
                               visi.com            with NIKITA KHRUSCHEV ...

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Grant Edwards-6]

On 2009-07-13, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:

> Here's a patch against 4.6.1 and the associated gentoo ebuild
> that restores the previous behavior (the patch makes it so
> that new windows start on top of the stack instead of on the
> bottom):
>
>   ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-4.6.1-new_windows_on_top.patch
>   ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-4.6.1-r1.ebuild

For Gentoo users, here's an overlay containing the above.  I
think you can somehow point layman at the URL below. I've never
used layman, so don't ask me for details, but it looks like
overlays comprising a tarball are supported:

  ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-overlay.tar.bz2

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! I'm a GENIUS!  I want
                                  at               to dispute sentence
                               visi.com            structure with SUSAN
                                                   SONTAG!!

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Chris G-6]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 09:41:57PM +0200, Vincent wrote:
>
>      My pet problem on this front is having to use add-ons like Devils Pie
>      to get the window placements I want rather than it being built into
>      the window manager.
>
>    Also, what is the problem with using Devil's Pie? Isn't that made exactly
>    for specialized use cases like this?
>    
*Lots* of people ask for ways to specify what window something starts
up on.  It was pretty standard on "old fashioned" window managers and
is still there on most of their descendents like fvwm.

The requirement has come up several times over the years on the xfce
list and I've seen people asking for it in other places too.  It may
not be a *majority* requirement but it's hardly what I would call
specialised.

--
Chris Green

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Olivier Fourdan-3]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
> So you think there is only one true correct way for a desktop
> to behave and everybody who had different preferences than you
> do is being "non factual"?

Again, you are not getting it.

My opinion has nothing to do with that (stop trying to put the
discussion on a personal level, will you), but I happen to be the
developer who wrote the code, so all I am asking is a simple fact
based explanation on why the previous behavior is desirable. Is that
too much asking for?

"I want that or I'll switch to another desktop/window manager" or "I
have been using window managers for 20 years" or "I am an xfce user
for 10 years" are *not* seen as  a simple fact based explanation.

Quite frankly, I said it and I'll say it again, this is free software,
I am not making any money out of that, so I am not loosing anything
when people switch to whatever other window manager. Give me facts,
not black mails. I am still waiting for a single good reason why an
unfocused window should cover up the currently focused window.

And I am sure that those who are users of xfce "for 10 years" probably
remember that the goal of xfce 10 years ago was to keep things simple,
and adding options for everything and anything not only bloats the
code but also make the code unmaintainable and raises the risks of
bugs (and yes, focus management in X is a complex matter).

Cheers,
Olivier.
_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Olivier Fourdan-3]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Grant
Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:

> On 2009-07-13, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>
>> Here's a patch against 4.6.1 and the associated gentoo ebuild
>> that restores the previous behavior (the patch makes it so
>> that new windows start on top of the stack instead of on the
>> bottom):
>>
>>   ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-4.6.1-new_windows_on_top.patch
>>   ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-4.6.1-r1.ebuild
>

Of course, this is not a technical discussion, the patch is trivial,
just revert this commit:

  http://svn.xfce.org/index.cgi/xfce/xfwm4/trunk/src/focus.c?r1=28924&r2=29163

But that's not the point, is it?

Cheers,
Olivier.
_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Joost Kremers-2]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 04:07:43PM +0100, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> I am still waiting for a single good reason why an
> unfocused window should cover up the currently focused window.

I believe several have been given in this thread. I gave my reasons for wanting
this behaviour in an earlier email, though in my case, it's not about new
windows that should become visible but not receive focus, just about existing
windows that I want to remain visible even when I switch focus to a larger
window. Which basically means that I don't have a problem with Xfce's current
policy, because I can simply set "Focus follows mouse" and unset "Raise on
focus."

But Grant (and I think at least one other poster) has explained a different
scenario: starting a program from e.g. a terminal window that pops up a window
to display certain info while the interaction with the program remains in the
terminal window. In such a case, you'll want the new window to be visible but
not in focus. If the terminal window is large or maximized, the popped-up window
may need to partially cover the focussed window to be visible.


--
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments
_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Grant Edwards-6]

On 2009-07-15, Olivier Fourdan <fourdan@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>> So you think there is only one true correct way for a desktop
>> to behave and everybody who had different preferences than you
>> do is being "non factual"?
>
> Again, you are not getting it.
>
> My opinion has nothing to do with that (stop trying to put the
> discussion on a personal level, will you), but I happen to be
> the developer who wrote the code, so all I am asking is a
> simple fact based explanation on why the previous behavior is
> desirable. Is that too much asking for?

As I stated earlier, it's annoying and a waste of time to have
to dig through the stack of windows hunting for the program you
just started.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! I want to kill
                                  at               everyone here with a cute
                               visi.com            colorful Hydrogen Bomb!!

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Net Llama!]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:

> On 2009-07-15, Olivier Fourdan <fourdan@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>>> So you think there is only one true correct way for a desktop
>>> to behave and everybody who had different preferences than you
>>> do is being "non factual"?
>>
>> Again, you are not getting it.
>>
>> My opinion has nothing to do with that (stop trying to put the
>> discussion on a personal level, will you), but I happen to be
>> the developer who wrote the code, so all I am asking is a
>> simple fact based explanation on why the previous behavior is
>> desirable. Is that too much asking for?
>
> As I stated earlier, it's annoying and a waste of time to have
> to dig through the stack of windows hunting for the program you
> just started.

To elaborate, if I happen to open a new window that is smaller than
pre-existing windows, I've often had to play guessing games to even
know where that new window is hidden.



--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                                    netllama@...
LlamaLand                       https://netllama.linux-sxs.org
_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Grant Edwards-6]

On 2009-07-15, Net Llama! <netllama@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>> On 2009-07-15, Olivier Fourdan <fourdan@...> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, you are not getting it.
>>>
>>> My opinion has nothing to do with that (stop trying to put the
>>> discussion on a personal level, will you), but I happen to be
>>> the developer who wrote the code, so all I am asking is a
>>> simple fact based explanation on why the previous behavior is
>>> desirable. Is that too much asking for?
>>
>> As I stated earlier, it's annoying and a waste of time to have
>> to dig through the stack of windows hunting for the program you
>> just started.
>
> To elaborate, if I happen to open a new window that is smaller than
> pre-existing windows, I've often had to play guessing games to even
> know where that new window is hidden.

And when the new window looks very similar to an existing
window (e.g. browsing two slightly different versions of the
same source file) it can take a non-trivial amount of effort to
figure out which is the new window and which is the old one.

When new windows start on top of the stack, you don't have to
go hunt for them and you know immediately which window is the
new one.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! I was born in a
                                  at               Hostess Cupcake factory
                               visi.com            before the sexual
                                                   revolution!

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Grant Edwards-6]

On 2009-07-15, Olivier Fourdan <fourdan@...> wrote:

>> On 2009-07-13, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a patch against 4.6.1 and the associated gentoo ebuild
>>> that restores the previous behavior (the patch makes it so
>>> that new windows start on top of the stack instead of on the
>>> bottom):
>>>
>>> ? ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-4.6.1-new_windows_on_top.patch
>>> ? ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/grante/xfwm4/xfwm4-4.6.1-r1.ebuild
>
> Of course, this is not a technical discussion, the patch is trivial,
> just revert this commit:
>
>   http://svn.xfce.org/index.cgi/xfce/xfwm4/trunk/src/focus.c?r1=28924&r2=29163

Thanks, I should have made it clear: that's what the patch does
is revert that change.  People building from svn need only to
revert the commit mentioned above.

For users of meta-distros like Gentoo which are based on the
official-source-tarball-plus-patches model a patch against a
released soruce tarball is the preferred way to temporarily
"fix" something.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! BARRY ... That was
                                  at               the most HEART-WARMING
                               visi.com            rendition of "I DID IT MY
                                                   WAY" I've ever heard!!

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Chris G-6]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 04:07:43PM +0100, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> Quite frankly, I said it and I'll say it again, this is free software,
> I am not making any money out of that, so I am not loosing anything
> when people switch to whatever other window manager. Give me facts,
> not black mails. I am still waiting for a single good reason why an
> unfocused window should cover up the currently focused window.
>
Very simply it often happens that there is information on the
unfocused window that one needs to be able to see while typing in to
the focused window.

It's one of the things that makes Linux/Unix easier to use than
Windows, this very specific difference.  In Windows it works as you
are proposing, you can't (for example) type into a CMD.EXE window
nestling behind IE, the moment you get focus on the CMD.EXE window it
is on top of IE (or at least part of it) and very often obscures the
important bit you are trying to read.

> And I am sure that those who are users of xfce "for 10 years" probably
> remember that the goal of xfce 10 years ago was to keep things simple,
> and adding options for everything and anything not only bloats the
> code but also make the code unmaintainable and raises the risks of
> bugs (and yes, focus management in X is a complex matter).
>
> Cheers,
> Olivier.
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce@...
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> http://www.xfce.org
>

--
Chris Green

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Olivier Fourdan-3]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Net Llama!<netllama@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>> On 2009-07-15, Olivier Fourdan <fourdan@...> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>>>> So you think there is only one true correct way for a desktop
>>>> to behave and everybody who had different preferences than you
>>>> do is being "non factual"?
>>>
>>> Again, you are not getting it.
>>>
>>> My opinion has nothing to do with that (stop trying to put the
>>> discussion on a personal level, will you), but I happen to be
>>> the developer who wrote the code, so all I am asking is a
>>> simple fact based explanation on why the previous behavior is
>>> desirable. Is that too much asking for?
>>
>> As I stated earlier, it's annoying and a waste of time to have
>> to dig through the stack of windows hunting for the program you
>> just started.
>
> To elaborate, if I happen to open a new window that is smaller than
> pre-existing windows, I've often had to play guessing games to even
> know where that new window is hidden.

But the window is placed just next to the current window in the focus
ring so that just one alt-tab will focus the newly mapped window. You
don't even have to use the mouse.

Of course if you shuffle up the focus ring, then you'll have to
search, but this should not be required at all.

Cheers,
Olivier.
_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Net Llama!]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Olivier Fourdan<fourdan@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Net Llama!<netllama@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>>> On 2009-07-15, Olivier Fourdan <fourdan@...> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@...> wrote:
>>>>> So you think there is only one true correct way for a desktop
>>>>> to behave and everybody who had different preferences than you
>>>>> do is being "non factual"?
>>>>
>>>> Again, you are not getting it.
>>>>
>>>> My opinion has nothing to do with that (stop trying to put the
>>>> discussion on a personal level, will you), but I happen to be
>>>> the developer who wrote the code, so all I am asking is a
>>>> simple fact based explanation on why the previous behavior is
>>>> desirable. Is that too much asking for?
>>>
>>> As I stated earlier, it's annoying and a waste of time to have
>>> to dig through the stack of windows hunting for the program you
>>> just started.
>>
>> To elaborate, if I happen to open a new window that is smaller than
>> pre-existing windows, I've often had to play guessing games to even
>> know where that new window is hidden.
>
> But the window is placed just next to the current window in the focus
> ring so that just one alt-tab will focus the newly mapped window. You
> don't even have to use the mouse.

But I don't want the window to be focused all of the time.  Perhaps i
just want to tail some output in that window over time (logs, etc).  I
want to be able to see the window without giving it focus.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                                    netllama@...
LlamaLand                       https://netllama.linux-sxs.org
_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Grant Edwards-6]

On 2009-07-15, Chris G <cl@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 04:07:43PM +0100, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
>> Quite frankly, I said it and I'll say it again, this is free software,
>> I am not making any money out of that, so I am not loosing anything
>> when people switch to whatever other window manager. Give me facts,
>> not black mails. I am still waiting for a single good reason why an
>> unfocused window should cover up the currently focused window.
>>
> Very simply it often happens that there is information on the
> unfocused window that one needs to be able to see while typing in to
> the focused window.
>
> It's one of the things that makes Linux/Unix easier to use than
> Windows, this very specific difference.  In Windows it works as you
> are proposing, you can't (for example) type into a CMD.EXE window
> nestling behind IE,

Actually, you can configure Windows to do that by tweaking some
registry entry values (or course).  If you don't want to hack
on hex numbers in registry entries, you can download something
called tweakui that allows you to enable "focus follows mouse"
and disable "raise on click".  IMO, it makes Windows far, far
easier to use -- especially when coupled with Cygwin.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! Today, THREE WINOS
                                  at               from DETROIT sold me a
                               visi.com            framed photo of TAB HUNTER
                                                   before his MAKEOVER!

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Chris G-6]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 09:17:01PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

> On 2009-07-15, Chris G <cl@...> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 04:07:43PM +0100, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> >> Quite frankly, I said it and I'll say it again, this is free software,
> >> I am not making any money out of that, so I am not loosing anything
> >> when people switch to whatever other window manager. Give me facts,
> >> not black mails. I am still waiting for a single good reason why an
> >> unfocused window should cover up the currently focused window.
> >>
> > Very simply it often happens that there is information on the
> > unfocused window that one needs to be able to see while typing in to
> > the focused window.
> >
> > It's one of the things that makes Linux/Unix easier to use than
> > Windows, this very specific difference.  In Windows it works as you
> > are proposing, you can't (for example) type into a CMD.EXE window
> > nestling behind IE,
>
> Actually, you can configure Windows to do that by tweaking some
> registry entry values (or course).  If you don't want to hack
> on hex numbers in registry entries, you can download something
> called tweakui that allows you to enable "focus follows mouse"
> and disable "raise on click".  IMO, it makes Windows far, far
> easier to use -- especially when coupled with Cygwin.
>

I have tweakui and "focus follows mouse" but I've never managed to
disable "raise on click".

--
Chris Green

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org

[Grant Edwards-6]

On 2009-07-15, Net Llama! <netllama@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Olivier Fourdan<fourdan@...> wrote:

>> But the window is placed just next to the current window in
>> the focus ring so that just one alt-tab will focus the newly
>> mapped window. You don't even have to use the mouse.
>
> But I don't want the window to be focused all of the time.
> Perhaps i just want to tail some output in that window over
> time (logs, etc).  I want to be able to see the window without
> giving it focus.

Apparently, the concept of a non-focused window being useful
and a desire for it to be visible (and even for it to be on top
of the focused window) seems difficult to understand for many
people.

My theory is that people who can't understand started out using
MS-Windows, and "we" didn't.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! Now that I have my
                                  at               "APPLE", I comprehend COST
                               visi.com            ACCOUNTING!!

_______________________________________________
Xfce mailing list
Xfce@...
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
http://www.xfce.org