[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep and compositing?
From: |
Germán Arias |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep and compositing? |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:21:56 -0600 |
El lun, 02-11-2009 a las 19:57 +0100, Truls Becken escribió:
> I believe Fred meant that if an application suddenly dies, the slots
> for its AppIcon and MiniWindows will still be registered as occupied.
OK, I will try an idea to solve this
>
> Another issue is that this protocol does not allow the taskbar to be
> moved or hidden, which also means it cannot implement layers. Would it
> be feasible to add a way to tell running applications to move or hide
> specific icons?
Well you can configure the position and size of taskbar. But no more
> How would one avoid screen flicker when moving a dock
> that holds icons from a dozen different apps?
I don't understand what are you talking about
>
> Then, if applications displayed icons *only* if a process had
> registered for managing them, things would start to look really bright
> since fiddling with defaults would no longer be necessary.
I think that is better if GSUseGSTaskBar is YES to default (because most
people don't use WindowMaker)
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, Wolfgang Lux, 2009/11/01
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, Fred Kiefer, 2009/11/01
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, Germán Arias, 2009/11/01
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, Fred Kiefer, 2009/11/01
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, David Chisnall, 2009/11/01
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, Germán Arias, 2009/11/01
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, Truls Becken, 2009/11/02
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?,
Germán Arias <=
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, Truls Becken, 2009/11/03
- Re: GNUstep and compositing?, Riccardo Mottola, 2009/11/03