Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 62
Yes sir, as Forrest Gump said, "pretty is as pretty does"! You probably are already aware of this, but I read somewhere that dwm 6.0 doesn't support xft, although there ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #31
    oz
    oz is offline
    forum.guy
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    arch linux
    Posts
    18,733

    Yes sir, as Forrest Gump said, "pretty is as pretty does"!

    You probably are already aware of this, but I read somewhere that dwm 6.0 doesn't support xft, although there is a patch that provides xft support. I also heard that dwm version 6.1 will be (reportedly) implementing xft. I added a couple of patches to my own dwm and the window manager started doing some weird stuff, so I went back to generic dwm. I've also noticed that using the default configurations, awesome window manager handles floating windows better than dwm, but I still prefer dwm's lightness and simplicity. I'm trying hard to stay clear of floating windows as much as possible, and it's been interesting playing around with tilers, so we'll see how it goes.


    Edit: while continuing to switch back and forth between awesome and dwm, it feels to me that awesome might be slightly snappier in performance even though it isn't as lightweight as dwm. If indeed there is any speed advantage with awesome, I'm guessing it's because awesome uses the XCB library rather than Xlib. Otherwise, I see no reason for one to be noticeably faster than the other since both are written in C, and awesome is a fork of dwm. On the other hand, perhaps there is no speed difference, and I'm only imagining it.
    Last edited by oz; 01-17-2013 at 01:25 AM.
    oz

  2. #32
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Turtle Island West
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by hazel View Post
    I only have one so I can't tell you.
    Rookie! You mean you don't have a box of old mice, keyboards, memory chips, weird adapters, IDE cables, vintage floppies, single speed CD players, dinglebobs, RS-232 cables, doohickeys, half-used dot-matrix printer cartridges, thing-a-ma-jigs, bent coat hangers, whatzits, dead batteries, and 14 year old install CDs? Your place is probably neater than mine then.

    It's an optical mouse so I don't think it can be taken apart.
    If you unplug it, flip it on its back, you can pry the rubber feet off it. The screws are under there. You need a small pointy Philips driver. Be careful with the rubber feet so they go back on properly. The adhesive can get dust on it so they won't stick anymore.

    They don't seem to sell ball mice any more.
    And thank the sweet lord for that. They don't sell old CRTs anymore either. I get such a thrill whenever I haul one of those herniating old tanks to the recycler.

    I think several of us might find that useful.
    I'll look into this font business a bit more and see what happens from that.

  3. #33
    Linux Engineer hazel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Harrow, UK
    Posts
    1,275
    Don't be rude! I have a little 15" crt monitor that still runs perfectly and is nice and easy on the eyes. These things are much more robust than modern flat screens. And I'm not going to open the mouse. I'm very clumsy and I'm sure I would break something.

    btw I've just noticed that this mouse doesn't actually have any buttons. Would you believe it? I've been using it for about a year and never noticed that. What happens is that if I press where the button should be (and where I always thought it was!), the cover, which is flexible, moves downward. I wonder if that has aything to do with the click function being more sensitive.
    "I'm just a little old lady; don't try to dazzle me with jargon!"
    www.hrussman.entadsl.com

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #34
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Turtle Island West
    Posts
    518
    Many apologies.

    You know, you're right in that the old CRTs are (were) nice and durable, for the most part. But I've had ones that whistle and shriek, ones that click and go blank then come up in some bizarre unreadable video mode, and I even had one that you could tan in front of. That was hard on the eyes, cause cataracts or something. They use a lot of juice too.

    My 15.4" LCD on my 8 year old laptop has a bunch of colored vertical lines running up the right 3" of the screen. They never go away. I think it's caused by the heat of the CPU which is right below that area, underneath my ENTER/BACKSPACE keyboard section, and it's always hotter that the rest of the PC. I can warm my hands by putting them there.

    ***

    Anyway, I got Xft working with dwm. The default Xft font is way better looking that the default X font, but it's variable width, kinda like arial. That means my clock is always changing in width. I have no idea what the font's name is. The font declaration for Xft in config.h is different:
    Code:
    static const char font[] = "courier-12:weight=bold";
    Seems to make more sense than
    Code:
    static const char font[] = "-*-courier-bold-r-*-*-12-*-*-*-*-*-*-*";
    I added a second font, fontmono, so I can have a monospace font for the status and tags fields, and variable for the window title. It looks really good, IMHO. I still have a bunch of font tweaking to do.

  6. #35
    oz
    oz is offline
    forum.guy
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    arch linux
    Posts
    18,733
    Yes, I use and prefer a fixed font in the status bar. Otherwise, I continue with xft fonts in all my applications. Early on, I applied the xft patch to dwm so the status bar could use xft fonts, but ended up not liking the change as much as anticipated, so I removed the patch. Overall, I'm currently pretty happy with the fonts setup on my own dwm box.
    oz

  7. #36
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Turtle Island West
    Posts
    518
    I have to admit, I don't trust patches. The original source has got to be pure as the driven snow, and mine never is. I use them, but I don't think I've ever actually applied one. I look at patch, manually compare and then apply, line by line. Re-compile. Repeat. I learn more that way too.

    I've got a nice window move/resize function going on, where I use CTRL-ALT-] to go into moveresize mode. Arrow keys move, CTRL-arrows resize, left mouse moves, right mouse resizes, ESCAPE cancels, ENTER accepts. I'm using the status area to show the dimensions on the fly, as they change. It overrides the clock and whatever else is in there normally.

    What I realize is that I want the font to be a bit bigger and bolder as it does this, and then go back to a smaller normal weight font for the clock. Now I need a 3rd font, fontmonobold[], why not have fontbold[] too? Now I have 4 fonts.

    So that leads me to having a way to control fonts on the fly. This leads to some precision text drawing routines, because my taskbar font is Helvetica12 and my status/tagbar font is Inconsolata-10. They have different heights and widths. That leads to figuring "Who's the tallest?" and making the entire bar that height. That had led to some 2-3 pixel artifacts at the bottom of the screen where the smaller fonts don't draw over. One thing leads to another, as they say. initfont() and drawtext() are barely recognizable from the original functions.

    Anyway, it's coming along, and the taskbar is looking pretty. I've even got colored text happening by embedding 0x01-0x07 in the text whenever you want to change colors. Kind of an ansi-color scheme, but they can be any 7 colors. I'm thinking of using the high bits for background colors.

  8. #37
    oz
    oz is offline
    forum.guy
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    arch linux
    Posts
    18,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Miven View Post
    I have to admit, I don't trust patches. The original source has got to be pure as the driven snow, and mine never is. I use them, but I don't think I've ever actually applied one. I look at patch, manually compare and then apply, line by line. Re-compile. Repeat. I learn more that way too.
    Some parts of each of the patches that I installed were rejected, so I ended up having to hand insert each of those sections into the source code manually. Indeed, doing the entire patch manually is probably the best way to get the job done correctly.
    oz

  9. #38
    Linux Engineer hazel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Harrow, UK
    Posts
    1,275
    You two are leaving me behind! The only modifications I'm making are in config.h. I wouldn't dare to mess about with the actual code. I have done a bit of programming with gtk2, which is fairly programmer-friendly, but I have no ambitions to get down and dirty with Xlib.
    "I'm just a little old lady; don't try to dazzle me with jargon!"
    www.hrussman.entadsl.com

  10. #39
    oz
    oz is offline
    forum.guy
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    arch linux
    Posts
    18,733
    It's actually quite easy to patch manually once you've figured it out, but before that point it seems more daunting than it really is. Still, I'm thinking the best way to approach all of is to find a tiling window manager that behaves the way you want by default rather than start adding lots of patches to get it there.
    oz

  11. #40
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Turtle Island West
    Posts
    518
    With dwm you cannot minimize windows. Sure, you can slide them off the screen to get them out of your way, but that's not what I want. What I want is ALT-F9 makes it disappear. ALT-F9 brings it back.

    I keep oowriter running because I use it for it's macro handling capability. Yes, I actually write normal documents occasionally too.

    The problem with big chunky apps like oowriter is that everytime you switch to their workspace, if they've gone dormant, it takes forever for my PC to recall all the graphic stuff and present it on the screen. CPU goes 100% and swap starts cranking smoke.

    So I thought: Why not just make it a 1x1 pixel window?

    It took a couple minor hacks, but now ALT-F9 toggles between fullscreen/floating/whatever and a 1x1 pixel window that sits in the top left corner.

    That's it. Now my PC doesn't have to think about any complex graphic stuff everytime it passes through.

    So far in my not-very-elaborate bug testing, everything works that responds to SIGWINCH and redraws the screen, but a plain old vanilla xterm with leftover cruft from the last manpage ends up with all its characters squished up the the left hand most column. Screws up the scroll back buffer too. Hmm...

    I'd call this the Calvin&Hobbes Method. It looks like my source code has peanut butter and jam fingerprints all over it now.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •