<window> <active-border-color> <window>
it's not clear whether the border is "pointing" left or right. However if you see: <window> <active-border-color> <gap> <inactive-border-color> <window>
It is clear the active border belongs to the left window.I have always assumed i3-gaps was just an aesthetic thing. How does the gap let you know what window is focused?
I've spent at least the last 6 years removing i3 and installing i3-gaps on all my new machines (and having to comment out gaps in my dotfiles/i3config while I do it). I didn't think I'd ever see this merge. This is awesome!
What's the difference between borders and gaps?
https://github.com/mikelward/conf/blob/main/config/compton.c...
Tried also transparency and it really does not work for me either.
Both Windows and MacOs do not such thing. How do gaps make a WM look like it belongs to this decade?
I mean if we use Windows as a standard, the way to tell which decade we’re in is by counting the number of totally different UI styles we have, right?
these days with high resolution monitors it can be nice to have a background and some gaps / transparency.
Well tweaking a Linux desktop for a few developers is the only so-called 'use case'. I don't see the point of it or messing around with config files and creating rube goldberg contraptions only for it to break again on a desktop update. This is even before mentioning that it is still using the prehistoric and insecure X11 windowing system.
Quite a pointless nothing if you ask me, when you start using a system that just works like macOS or Windows to get things done rather than fighting with system components and window managers to begin getting things done.
nobody asked you
It appears that some Linux Desktop fans here cannot handle it or even give a rebuttal other than cheap emotional swipes like this.
You can do better than that in your next reply.
Refuted what?
Pretending to refute something isn't a refutation, especially when you're being very emotional about it. There is also no need to be very upset either.
Try again.
I don't care about the shovels that you sell to developers, and you shouldn't care that some people want to have a little fun with their desktop. You don't do that. Fine, we get it. You made that extremely clear several times.
There is nothing to refute. We don't agree with you, we don't care about your opinion, and we're tired of hearing it.
Yes it is.
> I don't care about the shovels that you sell to developers, and you shouldn't care that some people want to have a little fun with their desktop. You don't do that, and don't think it's a "real" use-case. Fine, we get it. You made that extremely clear several times.
Clearly stating the reason why Desktop Linux support is eternally ill defined due to the moving parts of the desktop stack is the whole point of this, and no serious person would accept or cater support to a tiny minority of complaining Linux users to fix their highly tweaked non-standard desktop because they messed around with their dotfiles.
> There is nothing to refute. We don't agree with you, we don't care about your opinion, and we're tired of hearing it.
Who exactly is we? You don't speak for the one pretending to 'refute' my claims about the Linux Desktop ecosystem. They can explain why for themselves.
My claims about the Linux Desktop in my comments remain irrefutable, an evergreen fact and still no rebuttal to it exists because it is the truth.
At least I know not to buy your crappy "shovels". You clearly can't manufacture them to handle real world cases - let me guess they are the type of shovel that can only be used to shovel sand, and if some impurity, say a mote of dust, lands on your sand pile, it will destroy the shovel and you'll go rant about how the real problem is a lack of "standards" for sand instead of doing the reasonable thing and make a product that isn't just cleverly shaped trash.
There is no complicated contraption here. A couple tens of thousands of lines of code that makes arranging windows in any way you want completely effortless is a useful piece of software. Your window manager that just works probably uses more lines of code just for its animations.
Ignoring the combination matrix of Linux desktop distros combined with the multiple non-standard components in the desktop stack excluding the kernel (which is the only standard component) is an order of magnitude of complexity, qualifying the implementation, level of support, and testing and as a 'complicated contraption', including this project.
> Different people use their computer differently with different pieces of software and have different needs.
With the giant difference being how 'software support' is defined which for almost all Linux Desktop distros out there, is no standard distro meaning it being an ill defined, free for all.
e.g. see: https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/
This is not an invalid use-case. Not everybody wants to be 100% focused on productivity to the exclusion of absolutely everything else.
If you want to have something as simple as a background image, the only way you're going to be able to see it when using a tiling window manager is with gaps or transparency. Small gaps is arguably less intrusive than transparency.
There's a small footnote to this, but I think it's true enough to say it like that.
When I came to Linux I quickly got into the unixporn community. After a bit of making Ubuntu look nice, I discovered i3. I then found the gaps patch and rebased it onto the latest version of i3 at the time. Lots of unixporn people liked that and asked me to create a repository for it, so I did -- and i3-gaps was born.
The reason I say it's true enough to say it was born on unixporn is that it's where "a gaps patch" turned into "i3-gaps", and also I reworked so much of that initial small patch that it became something new essentially.
To each to their own then, whilst I continue to sell shovels to developers and turn over another ten to twenty thousand dollars a month for only that.
At least I know why I cannot define Linux Desktop support and have to draw the line on the most used and standard of desktop distros.
Okay?
So explaining the truth of not supporting complicated prehistoric contraptions is somehow upsetting to folks emotionally attached to their desktops?
EDIT:
Also with your own edits it really does show that the truth indeed hurts those that can't handle it when you are all over the place:
>> What the fuck are you talking about?
Getting very upset and angry. Causing one to sway into irrationality and reduced reading comprehension such as:
>> But saying there's no use-case is crazy .. can you not read?
There is 'little to no use-case' and it is almost invisible even if there is a use-case.
Surely you can read that and know that it isn't absolute. Yet, I'm the one that can't read? Your reading comprehension is quite low when you're angry over a windowing manager.
>> Look at your unhinged, boorish tone, uncouth bragging about how much money you make, your passionate and irrelevant denunciation of the Linux desktop, the deep personal offense you're taking to other people's UI preferences ... it's sheer projection.
I gave the reason why Linux Desktop support is ill defined. It is the truth and clearly it is upsetting you.
>> Do you have bipolar disorder or something? You really don't seem psychologically healthy.
Yet it is not me that is swearing, showing anger and giving short abrasive responses without explanation? Those who don't have a refutation often try to divert the subject to attacking the claimant and to make it all about them.
Oh dear.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: we've already had to warn you more than once about this kind of thing:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30635473 (March 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30225935 (Feb 2022)
We ban accounts that can't or won't stop doing this, so it would be good to stop.
Oh the horror!
It’s kind of weird to me that folks think that aesthetics don’t matter for something that’s so central to one’s life.
The legitimate complaint about/problem with aesthetics is when it becomes the priority and/or hampers functionality. The macOS calendar when it took its extremely skeuomorphic turn was the prime example of this (it was such a poster boy for aesthetics over functionality that Apple responded by getting rid of skeuomorphism altogether).
But aesthetic improvements don’t need to be like that at sll.
I was using i3 until the very end though, and I do dearly miss proper window management. My shortcut setup now is an absolute mess. I technically did run i3-gaps because of some features, but not gaps. This was mostly because I actually mostly used a one window per workspace approach, and if more, then a tabbed layout, so no need for gaps there.
I will say though that I run Linux more than ever these days. I'd say the reason has more to do with Windows and macOS feeling like worse prospects than Linux actually improving as a desktop OS...
That said, I'd like to take this moment to tangent. I really, really despise the rise of SOC2 theater. It has largely killed Linux workstations at startups, and I am pretty close to quitting out of the industry due to the amount of stress this has cost me.
That and the "war on hackers" that Apple seem to wage last few years also did not help (breaking uBlock in Safari, inability to permanently disable some system services without having to disable SIP and thus losing ApplePay+disk encryption to name a few)
the same thing goes for desktop windows. a bit of space between them makes the interface less cramped. if you're staring at it for 12 hours a day it's nice not to have things so cramped and pushed up against one another.
I'm kind of amazed at the sheer vehemence of the anti-gaps people. they always have to say "it's useless, I don't know why anyone would want it --" [proceeds to ignore all explanation for why it isn't useless and why people do want it] "-- therefore it shouldn't exist and the people who want it are decadent". I've never seen bizarre attitude to any other (optional!) UI feature.
it reminds me of those 20th century modernists who denounced serifs on letters, or ornament on buildings. or idk puritans or something.
Do you believe there is no merit to being able to set border size for windows?