I’ve been experimenting with window managers lately: fluxbox, openbox, awesome, and musca. Fluxbox and openbox, are pretty much just generic window managers, at least in my eyes. That said, they are well worth using, for most peopel. Awesome and Musca are tiling window managers, and a lot more, eh, minimalist. While I used to collect window managers, among quite a few other odds and ends back when I had time for it: but I have never done the “Tiling thing” beyond a very brief test drive of dwm.

Awesome and Musca create an interesting experience: you create the windows, the window manager, manages them. It’s almost alien lol. Normally you create a window, the window manager figures out where to draw it. You do the rest, e.g. by resizing and moving it around as necessary. In these tiling window managers however, newly created windows are automatically arranged and sized by dividing containers.

Launching your first window is like maximising, lauching a second window causes everything to resize and give each program half the screen, and so on based on some tiling pattern. The most used seems to be 1 half sized window left and 2 quarter sized windows right; works better than you might think. Rather than resizing the windows individual, you resize the containers. So if the screen is laid out as:

|         | term |
| Firefox |------|
|         | chat |

>

Selecting either the term or chat window and attempting to resize will resize all three windows. Try to enlarge the chat window horizontally, and Firefox will shrink and term grow, horizontally. Try to shrink the term window vertically and the chat window grows vertically, and so on.

It’s mind blowingly better than what the style of window management people are used to these days, which dates back to like Mac OS 2 or Mac OS 3 back in the ’80s. It is also a little bit awkward to let the computer take care of something, that you’ve been doing by hand for almost twenty years!

Relishing the experience however, has made me think of something different. I was just experimenting with the MinOverlapPlacementPenalties and MinOverlapPercentPlacementPenalties settings in FVWM, and it hit me. What if you could dynamically define what windows are important? I.e. what screen space should have more “Don’t cover this up unless necessary”, and how big a frame (i.e. for auto-tiling) should be, and so on?

It is technically possible, if perhaps computationally ‘interesting’ to figure out at the machine level. The windows that spend the most time focused or are most often gaining the focus, would be prime candidates. If the user ‘uses’ the window more than others, give it a larger chunk of available space scaled to its idea of how much space it needs, then prefer minimising the percentage of those windows being covered over or shrunken to absorb other windows in the same screen space.

It is food for thought!