You are not logged in.

#1 2008-11-05 04:57:55

Stythys
Member
From: SF Bay Area
Registered: 2008-05-18
Posts: 878
Website

Awesome vs. Xmonad

Hey guys...wanted to try to get out of openbox and into a tiling wm, and wanted to hear your thoughts on xmonad vs. awesome. I have googled quite a bit and can't really find any comparison between the two, and yes I've tried them both out, but not for very long, and want to hear what experienced users have to say before I dedicate lots of time into one or the other. thanks.


[home page] -- [code / configs]

"Once you go Arch, you must remain there for life or else Allan will track you down and break you."
-- Bregol

Offline

#2 2008-11-05 05:35:31

thayer
Fellow
From: Vancouver, BC
Registered: 2007-05-20
Posts: 1,560
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Xmonad is solid and feature-rich. The program is not only stable, but so is the configuration. The primary (only) disadvantage is that it requires ghc, the Haskell compiler and various Haskell libraries which make it a hefty platform.  If you already use other Haskell programs, this burden is negligible.  Also, the documentation is both thorough and immaculate.

Awesome is feature-rich, though in my experience not as stable. In terms of configuration, awesome feels like its all over the place. The developer has re-implemented the configuration system to use the Lua scripting language. In addition to this, it's companion program, Amazing uses Ruby for configuration.  Considering these two factors, awesome also requires a hefty set of dependencies for being a simple window manager.

Dwm, which I realize you didn't mention, was the inspiration for Xmonad and the original window manager from which Awesome was forked.  It is written in pure C with the specific design goal of being as lean and clean as possible.  dwm is the lightest of the three in terms of memory footprint, and arguably the fastest.  It is also my current window manager for all of the above reasons.

For what it's worth, I think Openbox is a beautiful wm and the best of the *boxes. It is so versatile (and standards-compliant) and it can be made to behave very similar to tilers with respect to keyboard control.

Last edited by thayer (2008-11-05 05:38:13)


thayer williams ~ cinderwick.ca

Offline

#3 2008-11-05 07:16:48

u_no_hu
Member
Registered: 2008-06-15
Posts: 453

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Xmonad

Targets (3): ghc-6.8.2-2  haskell-x11-1.4.2-1.2  xmonad-0.8-1 

Total Download Size:    48.58 MB
Total Installed Size:   257.39 MB

Awesome

==> awesome installation notes:
    ----------------------------------------
    During some updates of awesome, the config file syntax changes heavily.
    This means that your configuration file (~/.awesomerc) for another than
    this particular version of awesome may or may not work.

some as in almost every....


Don't be a HELP VAMPIRE. Please search before you ask.

Subscribe to The Arch Daily News.

Offline

#4 2008-11-05 08:35:26

Zeist
Arch Linux f@h Team Member
Registered: 2008-07-04
Posts: 532

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Awesome is probably more feature-rich than Xmonad, but it's started to require that you are quite a tinkerer with later versions as there always seems to be something in the syntax that's changing which you have to fix. I haven't had any stability issues yet however, and it runs with a relatively light memory footprint (not as light as dwm however).

Xmonad is solid, but doesn't have absolutely every feature Awesome has. It is quite nice however that it continues working from version to version without things breaking with most upgrades. Haven't had any issues with stability in Xmonad either and it also has a rather light memory footprint.


I haven't lost my mind; I have a tape back-up somewhere.
Twitter

Offline

#5 2008-11-05 09:11:51

Ashren
Member
From: Denmark
Registered: 2007-06-13
Posts: 1,221
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Zeist> I agree with you mostly, but I disagree on one point; Xmonad has at least every feature as Awesome. What features are missing in Xmonad?

Offline

#6 2008-11-05 10:39:10

Gigamo
Member
Registered: 2008-01-19
Posts: 375

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Ashren wrote:

Zeist> I agree with you mostly, but I disagree on one point; Xmonad has at least every feature as Awesome. What features are missing in Xmonad?

Wiboxes, built-in transparency, menu, loads of built-in widgets (promptbox for example, no need for dmenu), etc...

Oh, and can you play Space Invaders with Xmonad? (just to show the extensibility of wiboxes) tongue

Offline

#7 2008-11-05 13:39:38

fuscia
Member
Registered: 2008-04-21
Posts: 398

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

a huge +1 for dwm. as a former openbox fascist, i appreciate the minimalist essence of dwm. it doesn't have the variety of features that awesome, xmonad and even wmii have, but i don't find myself needing anything it doesn't have. i, too, feel it is the most zippy of all the tiling wms (which would also include ion3) of the ones i've tried. it's a nothing download, especially when compared to the 200+ mb mess that comes with xmonad.

Offline

#8 2008-11-05 13:47:37

Vintendo
Member
From: Netherlands
Registered: 2008-04-21
Posts: 375
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

I would love to use dwm, but their dual screen support is very bad...

Offline

#9 2008-11-05 14:06:32

Ashren
Member
From: Denmark
Registered: 2007-06-13
Posts: 1,221
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Ok, Gigamo, you win.

But for dmenu-like prompt in Xmonad, check:

http://www.xmonad.org/xmonad-docs/xmona … Shell.html

It's nice.

For all you ghc dependency whiners keep an eye on this: http://braincrater.wordpress.com/2008/0 … -released/

tongue

Edit:
Vintendo you could try : http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20763

Last edited by Ashren (2008-11-05 15:25:53)

Offline

#10 2008-11-05 16:34:46

thayer
Fellow
From: Vancouver, BC
Registered: 2007-05-20
Posts: 1,560
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Gigamo wrote:
Ashren wrote:

Xmonad has at least every feature as Awesome. What features are missing in Xmonad?

Wiboxes, built-in transparency, menu, loads of built-in widgets (promptbox for example, no need for dmenu), etc...

Unless I'm mistaken, Awesome's "built-in" transparency is no different than most programs in that it requires xcompmgr, which means it isn't very built-in at all. Regarding prompts, Xmonad has a bunch of nice prompts...shell prompts, ssh prompts, note-taking prompts, etc.

In terms of versatility and functionality, Awesome and Xmonad are toe to toe.  If there is one tangible advantage over Xmonad, it's that the Awesome tag bar responds to mouse interaction...and that's a very big deal for some folks.


thayer williams ~ cinderwick.ca

Offline

#11 2008-11-05 16:54:54

Ashren
Member
From: Denmark
Registered: 2007-06-13
Posts: 1,221
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

In terms of versatility and functionality, Awesome and Xmonad are toe to toe.  If there is one tangible advantage over Xmonad, it's that the Awesome tag bar responds to mouse interaction...and that's a very big deal for some folks.

I've solved that one by binding this script: http://hpaste.org/11725 to the dzen2 statusbar with -e 'button1=exec:nameofscript". It works try it out. The 'xdotool key alt+space' is for the layout - so that's covered as well.

Last edited by Ashren (2008-11-05 16:57:09)

Offline

#12 2008-11-05 16:59:14

Gigamo
Member
Registered: 2008-01-19
Posts: 375

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

thayer wrote:
Gigamo wrote:
Ashren wrote:

Xmonad has at least every feature as Awesome. What features are missing in Xmonad?

Wiboxes, built-in transparency, menu, loads of built-in widgets (promptbox for example, no need for dmenu), etc...

Unless I'm mistaken, Awesome's "built-in" transparency is no different than most programs in that it requires xcompmgr, which means it isn't very built-in at all. Regarding prompts, Xmonad has a bunch of nice prompts...shell prompts, ssh prompts, note-taking prompts, etc.

In terms of versatility and functionality, Awesome and Xmonad are toe to toe.  If there is one tangible advantage over Xmonad, it's that the Awesome tag bar responds to mouse interaction...and that's a very big deal for some folks.

Since a few git commits there is built-in pseudo-transparency without use of external apps like xcompmgr. smile

I did not know about the xmonad prompts.

Last edited by Gigamo (2008-11-05 16:59:42)

Offline

#13 2008-11-06 02:58:05

cardinals_fan
Member
From: /dev/null
Registered: 2008-02-03
Posts: 248

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

If you can't use dwm, I recommend Xmonad.  Awesome's ever-changing config file displeased me.


Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Offline

#14 2008-11-06 10:17:14

moljac024
Member
From: Serbia
Registered: 2008-01-29
Posts: 2,676

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

cardinals_fan wrote:

If you can't use dwm, I recommend Xmonad.  Awesome's ever-changing config file displeased me.

Awesome's ever-changing config file prevented me from ever even using it. I think I tried it for about 2 minutes though. I happily use Xmonad.


The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck, is the day they make a vacuum cleaner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they tell you that I've lost my mind, maybe it's not gone just a little hard to find...

Offline

#15 2008-11-06 10:49:25

Aprz
Member
From: Newark
Registered: 2008-05-28
Posts: 277

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Vintendo wrote:

I would love to use dwm, but their dual screen support is very bad...

You could try dwm-gtx.

Offline

#16 2008-11-06 11:45:40

Vintendo
Member
From: Netherlands
Registered: 2008-04-21
Posts: 375
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Thanks, i had seen that, but that is not the dual screen support that i mean. Once youve used Xmonad on two monitors you understand. Maybe i should learn C and write a patch myself tongue

Last edited by Vintendo (2008-11-06 11:46:21)

Offline

#17 2008-11-06 13:08:07

ST.x
Member
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: 2008-01-25
Posts: 363
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

moljac024 wrote:
cardinals_fan wrote:

If you can't use dwm, I recommend Xmonad.  Awesome's ever-changing config file displeased me.

Awesome's ever-changing config file prevented me from ever even using it. I think I tried it for about 2 minutes though. I happily use Xmonad.

If you try the Awesome3.0 release you wont have to keep changing it then, I also moved away from awesome-git because of the lack of time but seeing the new features will soon go back and anyway diff helps with that as well.

Last edited by ST.x (2008-11-06 13:08:29)

Offline

#18 2008-11-06 13:27:12

ArchArael
Member
From: Switzerland
Registered: 2005-06-14
Posts: 485

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

ST.x wrote:
moljac024 wrote:
cardinals_fan wrote:

If you can't use dwm, I recommend Xmonad.  Awesome's ever-changing config file displeased me.

Awesome's ever-changing config file prevented me from ever even using it. I think I tried it for about 2 minutes though. I happily use Xmonad.

If you try the Awesome3.0 release you wont have to keep changing it then, I also moved away from awesome-git because of the lack of time but seeing the new features will soon go back and anyway diff helps with that as well.

What kind of features?

Offline

#19 2008-11-06 14:10:01

ST.x
Member
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: 2008-01-25
Posts: 363
Website

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Gigamo wrote:
Ashren wrote:

Zeist> I agree with you mostly, but I disagree on one point; Xmonad has at least every feature as Awesome. What features are missing in Xmonad?

Wiboxes, built-in transparency, menu, loads of built-in widgets (promptbox for example, no need for dmenu), etc...

Oh, and can you play Space Invaders with Xmonad? (just to show the extensibility of wiboxes) tongue

Offline

#20 2008-11-06 14:25:11

ArchArael
Member
From: Switzerland
Registered: 2005-06-14
Posts: 485

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

ST.x wrote:
Gigamo wrote:
Ashren wrote:

Zeist> I agree with you mostly, but I disagree on one point; Xmonad has at least every feature as Awesome. What features are missing in Xmonad?

Wiboxes, built-in transparency, menu, loads of built-in widgets (promptbox for example, no need for dmenu), etc...

Oh, and can you play Space Invaders with Xmonad? (just to show the extensibility of wiboxes) tongue

Right. Sorry...I should read more carefully the posts.

Btw...I tried both and I guess I will wait for stable awesome api to start using it more seriously. Maybe I will have to wait a lot. At the moment I just play from time to time with awesome3.

I agree with you that awesome is more complete.

No need for external apps like dmenu and stalonetray. Pity that they didn't choose ruby for extending awesome. I like ruby and for sure I would be more motivated if I had to extend awesome functionalities through ruby. Maybe the config file could be easier to read and modify it it was written in ruby. Really pity IMHO.

Offline

#21 2008-11-06 15:01:01

Odd-rationale
Member
Registered: 2008-02-05
Posts: 102

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Try wmii. It can be configured in bash, ruby, python, or any language you want. But the wmii-ruby project is the most comprehensive.

Offline

#22 2008-11-06 15:16:12

Procyon
Member
Registered: 2008-05-07
Posts: 1,819

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

How is performance when window switching? I tried out awesome3 last week and felt like it did something to the window every time I switched windows in maximized mode causing some awkward visual effects that don't occur in ratpoison.

Offline

#23 2008-11-06 15:38:10

ArchArael
Member
From: Switzerland
Registered: 2005-06-14
Posts: 485

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

Odd-rationale wrote:

Try wmii. It can be configured in bash, ruby, python, or any language you want. But the wmii-ruby project is the most comprehensive.

I tried it several times but never really used it for a while. Maybe I should check wmii-ruby. I like the idea of using my language of choice. Thank you for the suggestion...didn't know about this nice feature.

Last edited by ArchArael (2008-11-06 17:19:08)

Offline

#24 2008-11-07 00:04:05

elmer_42
Member
From: /na/usa/ca
Registered: 2008-10-11
Posts: 427

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

I'm enjoying wmii right now, and I haven't had any other training with a tiling WM. There is a very helpful welcome prompt that sort of got me started in wmii. The tiling is great, and I'm even starting to get used to the idea of a tiling WM. The minimalistic design of them would probably be very helpful for a netbook or even a super-compact notebook, but I find it helpful even with my nineteen inch widescreen monitor. On another note, in case you have never used it, dmenu is my new killer app; it's like a run prompt on acid, that's how good it is.


[ lamy + pilot ] [ arch64 | wmii ] [ ati + amd ]

Offline

#25 2008-11-07 01:30:01

cardinals_fan
Member
From: /dev/null
Registered: 2008-02-03
Posts: 248

Re: Awesome vs. Xmonad

ST.x wrote:
Gigamo wrote:
Ashren wrote:

Zeist> I agree with you mostly, but I disagree on one point; Xmonad has at least every feature as Awesome. What features are missing in Xmonad?

Wiboxes, built-in transparency, menu, loads of built-in widgets (promptbox for example, no need for dmenu), etc...

Oh, and can you play Space Invaders with Xmonad? (just to show the extensibility of wiboxes) tongue

If you call those features... wink


Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB