You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#26 2008-12-25 01:35:56
- dhave
- Arch Linux f@h Team Member
- From: Outside the matrix.
- Registered: 2005-05-15
- Posts: 1,112
Re: Choice of WM
Like many others, I've bounced around a lot among various WMs and DEs. Aafter a couple of months of fooling around with KDE4 to see what the hoopla was all about, I've come back to Openbox.
For me, Openbox hits the sweetspot between minimalist and bloated. It also fits elegantly with Arch's philosophy. It's a natural companion to Arch, as it's highly configurable, fast, straightforward, and reliable. No razzamatazz. It lets me feel the power of my machine.
Offline
#27 2008-12-30 00:30:05
- gajo
- Member
- Registered: 2008-04-01
- Posts: 93
- Website
Re: Choice of WM
Ah, after some thought, I think I'll go back to dwm, while it lacks in initial configuration, I know C/C++ real well, so at least I can control it.
I tried xmonad, and let's just say I'll stick with imperative programming languages for now.
Offline
#28 2009-01-13 13:48:45
- ThomasAdam
- Member
- From: Southampton, England
- Registered: 2005-10-26
- Posts: 148
Re: Choice of WM
FVWM has been around for a while and the config file is still the same. It has the "great configurability" you are looking for, and while it's not really intended as a tiling WM I'm sure with the right config you could emulate some kind of tiling behaviour with it. I wouldn't be suprised if someone has already done it, actually.
http://edulinux.homeunix.org/~n6tadam/f … 080322.png
Yup -- I patched FvwmRearrange to achieve that, then made the whole thing look like Xmonad. 
-- Thomas Adam
Offline