Question(s) about tiling window manager

Janusz11 · 2011-01-24 18:32:49

Hello fellow Arch-users.

I'm looking for a new WM and need some help/advise from the community.

Currently I run Xfce. However, I have found over the past couple of month that I usually use terminals to get tasks done, such as starting programs, editing files or browse my computer and that my graphical WM stands more in my way than it is any good to me.

I do still use graphical programs, for example Icecat as my browser and Claws-mail as my e-mail client among others and will continue to do so. But for editing files or browsing my computer I already use vim and mc (midnight commander).

So, I thought I may be better off with a tiling WM. However, I'm not so sure if I have the right idea of a tiling window manager. My idea of a tiling WM is that I can place many terminals on my desktop and my graphical programs on top of them. Is that correct? Also I hope that the WM is able to open these terminals without interfering with each other, meaning that they don't overlap or something. I don't want to have to always move them around with the mouse. Does a tiling window manager do that?

If I make the change, I'd like to have WM that is easy to set up and configure. I don't want to spent too much time configuring and tweaking the program. I was looking into Subtle or Awesome. Would that be a good idea?

Again, maybe my idea of such kind of window manager is totally wrong. Therefore, I'm seeking support from the people who already use them.

Thanks in advance!

Last edited by Janusz11 (2011-01-24 18:35:47)

aleks223 · 2011-01-24 18:51:32

Mhhh i personnally think you should really give subtle wm a try.

The config is way easier and faster than ~~this lua piece of crap that consists in~~ awesome.

Last edited by aleks223 (2011-01-24 18:59:54)

chrisbuchholz · 2011-01-24 19:00:39

The best way to find out if something is you or not, is to try it. You could set up a virtual machine with Arch where you install some tiling WM to test it to see if its something for you.

Anyways... Yes, yeah, your idea of a tiling WM is a bit off. A tiling WM is a WM that doesnt float, or stack, your windows, but instead tiles them. That means, if you open one window, it will fill out all the available space there is. If you open up another, they will now share the available space 50-50. That means that the window already running will get rearranged. If you open another, they will now share it 25-25-50, and so on. How the windows are arranged is up to the window layout you use. E.g., in Xmonad, which I use, I have three window layouts: Tall, Mirror Tall and Full.

Tall and Mirror Tall is just horizontal vs vertical layout, where Full means that each window will fill out the whole desktop space - you will only see one window at the time - and you can then switch between the open windows in however way you do normally.

Most tiling WMs also has the feature of being able to manage windows in "floating" mode, where windows dont tile but floats (as you know it from gnome, kde and so on). I have it set up so that i have four workspaces. Three of which I use for tiling windows, and one for floats. Of programs which I float is empathy, transmission and gimp.

unexist · 2011-01-24 19:05:13

Janusz11 wrote:

So, I thought I may be better off with a tiling WM. However, I'm not so sure if I have the right idea of a tiling window manager. My idea of a tiling WM is that I can place many terminals on my desktop and my graphical programs on top of them. Is that correct? Also I hope that the WM is able to open these terminals without interfering with each other, meaning that they don't overlap or something. I don't want to have to always move them around with the mouse. Does a tiling window manager do that?

Yes, exactly. Tiling window manager arrange your windows dependent on their alignment strategy, there are many WMs that do that according to a preset layouts like wmfs, awesome, xmonad and other that offer a more flexible (manual) approach like wmii and i3 to name a few. There is also subtle, which offers a unique layout among the tiling windows managers. As far as I know all of them offer a floating mode, where windows can float loosely above the other tiled windows.

Generally you can say, the more flexible the whole thing is, the more you need to configure initially. Also some of the named WMs do more than just managing windows like providing a panel or tray on their own.

As far as I know all of them offer a floating mode, where windows can float loosely above the other tiled windows.

Janusz11 wrote:

If I make the change, I'd like to have WM that is easy to set up and configure. I don't want to spent too much time configuring and tweaking the program. I was looking into Subtle or Awesome. Would that be a good idea?

subtle and awesome are very flexible and you need to/can do lots of things in your config. Personally I use and develop subtle and my opinion is quite biased.

anonymous_user · 2011-01-24 19:14:32

If you want a tiling WM thats easy to configure, I'd look at scrotwm. The text config file is simple and easy to read.

Inxsible · 2011-01-24 19:18:53

First you need to decide whether you want manual or dynamic tiling. And the only way to do this, IMO, is to try them yourself.

Manual tilers : wmii, i3, musca
Dynamic : dwm, wmfs, awesome

Then search through the forums. There are many threads discussing this issue. Also look at the "comparison of tiling window managers" on the wiki to give you a gist of all the tilers so you can choose what fits you best.

kinhodder · 2011-01-24 19:25:48

My idea of a tiling WM is that I can place many terminals on my desktop and my graphical programs on top of them. Is that correct?

Some (most?) tiling window managers can work that way if you want, with certain applications set to float above tiled applications, or you can tile everything - terminals, graphical apps, whatever.

Also I hope that the WM is able to open these terminals without interfering with each other, meaning that they don't overlap or something. I don't want to have to always move them around with the mouse. Does a tiling window manager do that?

Yep, that's exactly what tiling WMs do, and that's what's great about them!

If I make the change, I'd like to have WM that is easy to set up and configure

I've found ratpoison, scrotwm and WMFS all very easy to get up and running - maybe try one of those first before the likes of awesome? I use dwm myself, which is a wee bit more hassle, but still fairly simple to configure.

hellomynameisphil · 2011-01-24 20:11:57

I can't tell for your sure from your original post, but if you mostly want to tile terminals, why not use tmux (or dvtm or whatever)? Then you can have tiled terminals and floating everything else.

thisoldman · 2011-01-25 01:11:36

Some people use floating WMs and Pytyle or Pytyle2 to enable tiling when wanted.

My solution was to use Openbox and pseudo-tiling. I set up keyboard shortcuts that move and resize a focused window to a preset position. I have presets for the four quarter-screen windows; the four half-screens, vertical and horizontal; and one for full-screen. Openbox is configured with xml. For me, xml is easy to edit but a pain to write.

I still find tmux to be helpful, as well as Vim's split screens.

There are many different ways to accomplish what you would like.

Janusz11 · 2011-01-26 18:09:40

Woa, thanks a bunch, lads! Loads of helpful information in here.
I already start to get a better picture. And of course I'll keep on gathering information.
Loads of good suggestions about different WM as well. My preference is still with subtle (don't ask me why), but I'll check the others as well for sure. scrotwm already sounds interesting.

One more question though. Inxsible, you've mentioned manual and dynamical tiling. I've tried to get more information about it but couldn't get a clear picture. I'd reckon that a dynamical tiling WM is placing the different applications dynamical based on a user configuration (horizontal or vertical layout for example) whereas with manual tiling the user can place the application windows manually (more control by user). Is this correct or is it the other way around?

In any case, thanks again for all the helpful input. I know why I like this distribution and community so much.

unexist · 2011-01-26 18:18:33

Janusz11 wrote:

My preference is still with subtle (don't ask me why), but I'll check the others as well for sure. scrotwm already sounds interesting.

Fine with me and I can understand that.

Janusz11 wrote:

One more question though. Inxsible, you've mentioned manual and dynamical tiling. I've tried to get more information about it but couldn't get a clear picture. I'd reckon that a dynamical tiling WM is placing the different applications dynamical based on a user configuration (horizontal or vertical layout for example) whereas with manual tiling the user can place the application windows manually (more control by user). Is this correct or is it the other way around?

Probably yes, although the dynamic prefix is a bit redundant imho, since tiling is per definition to arrange windows according to a given layout/pre-/ruleset. I would rather call it automatic tiling as opposite to manual tiling.

Inxsible · 2011-01-26 18:37:39

yes, I agree with unexist. Its more of an automatic tiler than dynamic. I guess dynamic is just a word that been used for those tilers. Auto tilers have a preset style of containers whereas manual tilers don have any preset configuration and you can create containers the way you want and where you want on the screen

Jaeplane · 2011-01-26 18:52:30

I've tried out a few tiling window managers and had a bit of trouble setting some of them up (dwm, Awesome, xmonad). I would highly recommend WMFS (Windows Manager From Scratch), the one I am using now. The config file is very easy to understand and there are a lot of tiling modes provided by default. It also sets up a statusbar for you (a clickable one, at that).

One downside to WMFS is that the community is pretty small compared to the following other tiling window managers have, but there is a nice thread here that you can check out and you're bound to get help there when needed.

Good luck on your search! I'd like to know which one you settle for and why.

Last edited by Jaeplane (2011-01-26 18:53:15)

unexist · 2011-01-28 17:03:22

Jaeplane wrote:

One downside to WMFS is that the community is pretty small compared to the following other tiling window managers have, but there is a nice thread here that you can check out and you're bound to get help there when needed.

I don't see small communities as a drawback, usually they are kinder and the devels actually react on requests.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-01-24 18:32:49

Question(s) about tiling window manager

#2 2011-01-24 18:51:32

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#3 2011-01-24 19:00:39

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#4 2011-01-24 19:05:13

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#5 2011-01-24 19:14:32

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#6 2011-01-24 19:18:53

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#7 2011-01-24 19:25:48

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#8 2011-01-24 20:11:57

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#9 2011-01-25 01:11:36

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#10 2011-01-26 18:09:40

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#11 2011-01-26 18:18:33

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#12 2011-01-26 18:37:39

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#13 2011-01-26 18:52:30

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

#14 2011-01-28 17:03:22

Re: Question(s) about tiling window manager

Board footer