I feel like my eyes can only look at one thing at a time. I just have shortcuts to switch between programs.

Why do you prefer using a tiling WM and how do you use the tiling functionality in your workflow?

  • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t need the mouse. Nothing ever gets tucked behind anything else. dwm allows you to put one window on multiple tags (desktops) in multiple window arrangements. Also it’s fully scriptable. Why NOT use a tiling WM?

    • jemorgan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You really hit the nail on the head here. Never having to take take your hands off the keyboard, while always having windows take up exactly the right amount of room, is the main reason I hate having to use non-tiling WM.

      And your other point is spot on, too. Any workflow that you use in a standard WM you can also do in a tiling WM, except (imo) more easily. And there are lots of workflows that are agonizing without tiling functionality.

      I want to read this book full screen. Hang on, didn’t that other book say something different about this? I want to open it. This is complex, I want to compare side-by-side. Oh, I get it, I should take notes on both of these. Hang on, I need to look at both books while taking notes. Okay I’m done with the second book but I still want to take notes on the first.

      Slogging a mouse around to click, drag, click, drag, double click, drag, all while repositioning your hands to type, sucks so bad.

      The case is even more clear when you consider that the concept of tiling WMs is just an extension of the game-changing paradigm behind terminal multiplexers and IDE splits.

      It’s just better. There’s probably a bit of an adjustment when you’re first adapting to it, especially if they’re really used to a mouse-centric, window-draggy workflow, which is likely the only reason that people think they don’t like them.