[solved] Confused about composite managers

zacariaz · 2015-07-01 02:48:20

In a very short time I'll receive my brand new laptop, and I can't wait to set it up, thus I've already started planning the process.

I've pretty much decided to try out awesome WM. I may not stick, but I hope I can get used too it.
However it would seem that a composite manager might also be in order. I don't quite understand why, as I have no need for wobbly windows and such, but then again I would like proper transparency, and for once in my life, no screen tearing.

So, it would seem there are 3 candidates, and I simply have no idea what to chose.
It's going to run on and Core M CPU and Intel graphics (5300 I think), so light weight is obviously preferable.

It is my understanding that Compiz is exactly not that, so I'm going to forget about that for the moment, but please let me know if I'm wrong in doing so.

In my mind that leaves Compton and Cairo.

Cairo for some reason seem to be very popular, though the rather short wiki page does give the impression that it is anything but stable, and I do like stability. Again, I'd like to know if I'm right in my assumptions.

Lastly there is Compton, which seems to do what it does well, thus it seems the obvious choice.

I suspect the three candidates has vastly different features, some may work better with some GPU's, and what not. I'm still trying to figure out the differences of importance to me, but I find it difficult, so again, if you can, please advice me.

I suspect that's all really. I know I've posted this in the Newbie section, but I have been sunning arch for many years, so you probably won't hear from me again anytime soon, assuming you have nothing to add to my evaluation of the options.

Best regards.

NB.
I should probably mention that Unagi also sound rather interesting. In a way, it's the most interesting of them all, but since there's no available wiki page with instructions and such, perhaps it's best to leave that one out.

Last edited by zacariaz (2015-07-01 10:26:07)

ewaller · 2015-07-01 03:46:13

IMHO given Intel graphics (Which I deliberately choose for this new laptop), Transparency mostly with not much other eye-candy (except rapid fades) -- Compton. The others you mentioned are, er, less than stable.

This machine runs i3, openbox or dwm (in that order, depending on my mood); feh and compton on all three DEs.

Last edited by ewaller (2015-07-01 03:46:48)

Malkymder · 2015-07-01 03:55:51

zacariaz wrote:

However it would seem that a composite manager might also be in order. I don't quite understand why, as I have no need for wobbly windows and such, but then again I would like proper transparency, and for once in my life, no screen tearing.

Fancy effects aside...

extracted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositi … ow_manager

With a compositing manager, if a window stops repainting itself when requested by the window manager, its last repaint will remain displayed and the window might be dimmed. Often the title changes to reflect the status of the window as unresponsive. A program may prevent its window from being moved or unmapped, but generally will not cause repainting problems.

Malkymder · 2015-07-01 03:59:44

I would go for Compton as well as suggested by ewaller ...

zacariaz · 2015-07-01 09:22:18

Thanks your answers. Compton it is. Also, I'm rather pleased as my new laptop arrived one day early. I suspected it would, but I did not dare to hope.

I would like to ask one last question, while I'm waiting for the arch image to download and taking on the base install.

In term of hardware|resource requirement, is there a discernible difference between Awesome and Openbox? I only ask because ewaller mentioned it, and I have been running Openbox in the past. Just thought Id try out something new and more configurable, but if Awesome put a significant load on the system, obviously I will rethink that.

x33a · 2015-07-01 09:47:29

@zacariaz,

Awesome is quite different from Openbox, being a tiling wm and all. Also, it would be better to ask this question in a new thread or even better if you take a look at the wiki first.

zacariaz · 2015-07-01 10:25:50

x33a wrote:

@zacariaz,
Awesome is quite different from Openbox, being a tiling wm and all. Also, it would be better to ask this question in a new thread or even better if you take a look at the wiki first.

I have taken a look on the wiki, many times in fact, and am well aware the Awesome is quite different, which is why I want to try it out. But obviously, if it's very resource intensive, which does not seem to be the case, it may not be worth the effort, and the answer to that question I have not been able to find on the wiki.

And yes, I might have opened up a new thread, but I added it as a side not, as I suspect it's not very important.

Anyway, I'll mark this thread as solved now, as to not confuse people into thinking that the before mentioned question is an essential part of this thread.

Arch Linux

#1 2015-07-01 02:48:20

[solved] Confused about composite managers

#2 2015-07-01 03:46:13

Re: [solved] Confused about composite managers

#3 2015-07-01 03:55:51

Re: [solved] Confused about composite managers

#4 2015-07-01 03:59:44

Re: [solved] Confused about composite managers

#5 2015-07-01 09:22:18

Re: [solved] Confused about composite managers

#6 2015-07-01 09:47:29

Re: [solved] Confused about composite managers

#7 2015-07-01 10:25:50

Re: [solved] Confused about composite managers

Board footer