Re: [RP] ... --solved (with my workspace scripts) -Phuk!

[TBlittlefoot]

Hello, Kipling.
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:48:52AM -0800, Kipling Inscore wrote:
> > And then firefox busts out of group ws2 and appears in group ws1 too!
> 
> Not sure I understand the details (same firefox window that was
> already mapped or a new window? When you switch to ws1 or after you've
> been using it a while?) but I think this may have something to do with
> mapping firefox while ws1 is selected then moving it into ws2.
> Selecting a ratpoison group doesn't immediately hide windows from
> other groups and I recall rpws carries some odd side-effect of this
> (though I can't recall the details).

At this point, I have firefox under control except that I can't switch
to ws1 from ws2 (where firefox was manually brought up)  while on
the Web. If I do, firefox tries to take over frame 1 (a one line 
frame at the bottom of the window, one of two) and fails, because
the frame is dedicated. But it _does_ kill the window, the 'xterm'
in it, and the script running in the 'xterm'.

I cannot bring up firefox with ratpoison or it trashes my studio.

(my label for number of workspaces forming a relatively fixed
desktop working environment)

Setting the rudeness low enough to control firefox also renders
it unusable.

(I am about to bind some keystrokes to rudeness 0 and rudeness 15 just
for the purpose of controlling rude apps life firefox) 

I am now using firefox only for the very few websites I access that require it. 
Otherwise it's links. I am going to be writing the firefox developers
and telling that what I think of their rude and obnoxious application
and let them know that it is now relegated to the status of links'
suboordinate, kept locked in its room and called upon only when there's
a really nasty job to be done.

And that I'm going to be building it from source, editing the
user-agent string so that no one knows I use it. 
> 
> Tangentally related: There's an issue with websites being able to
> resize firefox (I think this is what's going on...

That's interesting.


> and if it is, why
> did the firefox devs think that was a good idea?).

Because the developers are given thousands of dollars a month, apiece, in used 
bills
under the table by the representatives of a consortium of multi-national
corporation who want to control the browsers that visit their sites?

And/or percs of other kinds...

Because they are a bunch of spoiled and rotten frustrated teenage bullies 
(regardless of their chronological ages) and naturally, the applications
they produce reflect their personalities?

Another obnoxious thing firefox does, is when a site wants to install
a plugin to view all or part of a site, on the bar the button for 
accepting the plugin and the X button for denying it are immediately adjacent 
to each other, making it very easy to slip up and hit the install button.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever let a website (even try to) 
install an executable on my box.

> Ratpoison doesn't
> actually let firefox resize (it shouldn't let firefox resize) but
> firefox doesn't seem to realize this (in blatant disregard of ICCCM)
> and renders pages completely wrong until the window actually gets
> resized 

> ('redisplay' doesn't work--I 'split' and then 'only').

Noted.

> I've
> been meaning to fix this, preferably by filing a bug with firefox,
> applying a patch or having the firefox devs fix it but alternately by
> a firefox extension, ratpoison script or something.
> 
> > Gaim does that too. So I ditched it.
> 
> What are you using instead (or have you just ditched IM altogether)?

Don't have it now. But there are a few console IM clients that look
promising. I prefer email. Less intrusive.

But sometimes real-time conversation is called for, though the option
to make it a conference call should exist. 

> I've wanted to ditch Gaim (now called Pidgin). I hate Pidgin.
> LibPurple (pidgin's multi-IM-protocol abstraction layer) is good but
> Pidgin is horrible. And Finch (text-mode Pidgin) is just plain
> braindead (keyboard-driven floating window manager in curses). I
> mostly just use the AIM protocol so I might start using pork again but
> I like being able to change the layout as Pidgin's two-window system
> allows.

> I've been thinking about creating a LibPurple client that will run in
> multiple terminals (or in a single split terminal using screen) but
> who knows if/when I'll get around to that.

Go for it. I'll help test it. Make conference calls possible. And 
eliminate the need for a server. That way it would be a lot more
private. (I guess you'd need a lot of the server code in the client
for that, but that code is available under GPL, etc.)

But fair warning: If it pops up in my face when someone 'calls' me,
it's history. A tiny window in the corner would be okay, but it better
vanish when I hit Esc. And no blinking! :-)

A console app to run in an xterm would be better than an X app. Less
resources and they are never rude.

> An alternative in the meantime would be appreciated. Maybe post it in
> the Apps section of the ratpoison wiki as well if it isn't already
> listed.

Okay. I'll be doing some real research on the subject one of these
days. Or rather, finishing what I've started.

> > I'd be inclined to blame xorg/xfree86 for writing code that allows
> > people to write apps that behave like spoiled children:
> >
> > "Look at me! Drop whatever you are doing, because it isn't important.
> > Only ME is important. Look at me!"
> 
> ICCCM was supposed to prevent that sort of thing but unfortunately it
> is and only can be an etiquette guide. The window manager doesn't get
> enough special privilege under X11 to really enforce any particular
> window behavior.

That's a bummer. One great big bug in X.

It should be the other way around. The server should be subservient to 
the window manager.

A server, the X server, should _serve_.

> Even if it did there would probably still be
> control-fight loops where the program asks for something, the window
> manager refuses, so the program asks again, possibly locking up its
> interface.

Who would put up with that? The developers would soon find themselves
with apps that nobody used.

>  Really, I think the solution is responsible X11 client
> programming,

Sorry, but I disagree. The X server should be subservient to the
window manager and no application should be able to do anything
that the user controlling the window manager doesn't want to happen.

> starting with following the ICCCM guidelines.

Make the xserver enforce those guidelines.

> Violations
> tend not to show up in most window managers as they're essentially
> useless at actually managing windows--they just let them do whatever
> they want and intermittently let the user drag them around. Most
> applications work in most window managers so most application
> developers don't care if they don't work in obscure, especially
> tiling, managers like ratpoison (if they're even aware of ratpoison).

Shawn has done a pretty good job with his 'dedicate' and 'rudeness'
controls, but it's obvious that you are essentially right here.

> Also, I think this is what 'rudeness' is supposed to deal with. But it
> can't, as it is, actually put the window in its place--only keep it
> hidden.

And, as we have both touched upon, the application developers can just
write their apps so that if anyone tries to control them they won't
perform. Which is, as I noted above, what firefox does when boxed
with a low rudeness.

> I wouldn't want to introduce unnecessary features into ratpoison but
> perhaps it should allow some sort of delegation/scripting for windows
> that have requested to be mapped but aren't yet mapped (ie a hook on
> maprequest and commands that allow putting an arbitrary window into an
> arbitrary group or frame) so that we don't have to script with
> xtoolwait and saving/interrupting the user's current setup.

Don't know xtoolwait. It doesn't come with Slackware. Can it be used
with bash or are you talking about one of the X scripting languages?

> > Piss on that. This is my computer. It's like my home. When someone
> > comes in my home they behave themselves or they leave. I set the
> > standards for behavior, not some coder somewhere.
> 
> File bugs with programs that don't follow ICCCM. File bugs with
> programs that have lame behavior, even if it is "technically correct".
> Modify programs and send patches.

Or dump them and find something better. 

If people quit using rude programs the developers would change their
ways in a hurry.

> I modified pidgin to name its conversation window "conversation"
> rather than the name of whoever's conversation is focused--this makes
> using my framing script a little easier as I don't have to select a
> particular person to converse with and it won't get messed up if
> someone IMs me before the conversation window is properly framed. I
> still have to open the conversation window, which I haven't yet dealt
> with, and pidgin is still otherwise a hassle, so I think this one is a
> lost cause but I think I've illustrated my point.

Thanks for the insight into what's going on behind the scenes, Kipling.

Tom