On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:35 PM Simon <linux@???> wrote:
>
> o1bigtenor via Dng <dng@???> wrote:
>
> > What happens is that I come back to my machine and (usually use on of
> > one the cursor movement keys) hit any key to reactivate the displays
> > and when things have gone south well EVERY desktop is piled up on the
> > one 'desktop’.
>
> If it’s any consolation, you’re not the only one - not that my experience will help (probably).
>
> At work, as part of my penance I have to use Windows.
> Depending on the monitor, it may or may not have this problem. Before our office got overhauled for hot design, I had a similar problem - if the system ever put the external display to sleep (which was often, and admin enforced settings), on wake, it would wake up, move everything to the built in display, THEN realise the external display was there agin and enable it. Result - every wind shrunk to fix the laptop display (scaled 50% to make it actually readable), then moved onto the external monitor (even the windows I wanted on the laptop display).
>
> But when I went into the office and used the new monitors they’d installed, problem not present - still using HDMI, same laptop.
>
> So in my case it was simply that the external display wasn’t seen as available immediately after sleep - meaning the system re-organised the desktop for the laptop display, and then re-organised the desktop for two displays. And Wind 10 is utter s***e at this, it really is utter s***e - oh yes, and it even screws up which is the primary display (which has the full taskbar). OS X (Max) is “not bad” - it makes a half decent stab at remembering how things were - so pulling the plug on an external display moved everything to the laptop built-in display, plugging it back in means that most stuff goes back more or less where it was. Annoyingly, Mail doesn’t correctly resize the columns - but compared with Win 10 it’s near perfect.
>
> *Probably* not much help, but I have a suspicion it may be the same problem - displays seen as “not there” for long enough to shove everything onto a different display.

I found what the problem is!!!

It seems that kde programmed something called kwin (the windowing
subsystem which connects uses something or other somehow with X11) and
back some 10 years ago through - - - - - who would ever need to have more
than 20 virtual desktops. So there is a section where it reads something
like this - - -
minimum number of virtual desktops is 1 and the maximum is 20.

I started this odyssey looking in lxqt which is what I use for a
display manager (and a few other bits too).
The dev there was actually incensed that I would even think of using
the number of virtual desktops that I am presently running - - - - said
he absolutely could not see any need for it.


TL;DR
Find it really helps things if a desktop is devoted to one particular
function or thing - - - -sometimes in
areas where I do lots of looking and research I have as many as 4
different desktops - - - grin - - -
one of those areas is 'puter' - - - - so I'm looking for ideas on
database setup and that easily can
dominate a desktop - - - by this I mean that say I'm trying to figure
out how to store values in a
database - - - so I might want to know how to access the database, how
to set up something like a
front end and then limitations - - as part of that I'm trying to
figure out how much data I might be storing
as one function would happen every 0.5 seconds. So I might have a page
open where I'm taking notes
or jotting ideas (I try to reference stuff as well) - - - -
That's one desktop - - - I'm looking at my list of
desktops and I count some 30 odd different areas - - - so I'm a busy
kind of guy. I don't use every
desktop every day but I'll for sure see each most every month and most
of those every couple weeks.
It all depends what's happening - - - .

I understand that programmers don't work like this but I know other
business people that also function
in a lot of areas all the time. Hard to convince someone that doesn't
see a need for a bigger space
that one could be useful!!!

>
> PS - I’m envious - I’d be happy(ish) if I could afford 2off 1920x1200 displays (I have one from work from when covid hit and we were all told to work from home). Those extra 120 rows of pixel make a surprising difference, but two would be nicer for some of the work I do.
>
Back some 30 odd years ago I ran into the factoid that office type
workers work done was
in direct relationship to their screen real estate. I remember my Mac
IIci I have a 640 x 480
display and it seemed so huge after the Mac+ - - - -was that 320 x
200 - - - dunno.
Then when I switched away from the Mac world to a PC I wanted to buy a
17" display.
The company I was dealing with - - - well for another $150 I would get
a 19" display - - -
hmmmmmmmmmm - - - - and for another $150 (total $300 extra) I got a
21" - - - - -
1600 x 1200 - - - - I ran that thing for 14 years and then when I put
together the next system I
went to 4 - 1920 x 1080s - - - well that 21" is still the sharpest
clearest monitor and it is
still working fine - - - - I wouldn't want 5 of them on my desk but
there are still some
great points on those old CRTs. I ran the 4 - 1920x 1080s for like
almost 11 years and
I found that when I was trying to do some CAD work they just weren't
big enough - - -
so thought I would treat myself and got a fairly reasonable 4k monitor.
What is interesting is that one of the 1920x 1080s is starting to show
some signs of
aging - - - - my upgrade path is likely going to be adding 2 - 4k
monitors and running
just those. I have had too many times when I only had the 24" LCDs
that every screen
was full with what I was working on - - - found that was most often
true when I was dealing
with company record keeping (most people call it accounting - - - -
not actually the same
thing - - - I digress).
Looking just now - - - direct replacements for my 24" are running some
$190 CAN + taxes
and likely might even be able to find a sale occasionally. I'd say
going from one to 3
monitors would likely increase your throughput at least 30% and
sometimes far more.
Can you afford NOT to have more screen real estate? (You can't afford
$400 - - - sorry
that's a bit tough to understand given the increase of work
capabilities that they would
introduce - - - if I was working for a company that was worth working
for I would get them
myself (making it clear that they were not the company's!!!) because I
believe in the concept
that much - - - enough though!!)

My computer is a tool - - - - and I need to get work done - - - I hate
tools that have artificially
imposed limitations that don't make sense to me. I also have a couple
trades designations where I make and/or fix tools (physical tools) for
others - - - so I'm more than
a bit of a tool maker - - - in a bunch of different ways. Its sorta
neat when you can take a
process and move it from taking 1.5 hour/piece (in groups of 10 to 15)
to with modifications
to tooling, jigs, structures and techniques that that same run of 10
to 15 now averages
1/2 hour with individual items getting as low as 20 minutes within
that run (the whole run
takes longer because there is the assembly and dis-assembly of your
tooling and the storing of completed
product. So - - - beating a dead horse - - - I don't like limitations
imposed that really don't
have to be there.

Dunno - - - - does all this make sense?

Have a grand evening - - - wherever you are!!