fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

Xeo84 · 2009-06-18 13:45:02

Now i'm running fluxbox as a desktop environment but i heard much about the "tiled wm".

But what are the difference between a wm like my fluxbox and a tiled wm?
And if i choose to try to install a tiled wm, which one ? awesome, xmonad , pekwm?
What are the differences?

Can u explain me??

Thank you!

Ghost1227 · 2009-06-18 13:50:01

pekwm isn't a tiling wm
awesome uses lua for it's configuration and is a kick-ass wm (only downside is frequently changing configs)
xmonad uses haskell for it's configuration and is still pretty sweet, but it's not awesome

Best way to decide is to play with them!

mikesd · 2009-06-18 13:50:23

Tiled wms generally don't have window decorations. Windows take up the entire screen and are arranged either manually or automatically. Check the screenshots threads to see examples of some of the tiling window managers. Check out awesome if you want to have a taste and if you enjoy the experience check out xmonad, stumpwm, musca, etc. There are plenty to choose from.

Trent · 2009-06-18 13:57:15

Best way to find out is to give it a try. I like wmii but awesome and xmonad seem to be more popular. But read the man pages first; tiling wms are primarily keyboard controlled and most won't give you a hint of how to start programs or exit.

Xeo84 · 2009-06-18 13:58:35

thanks!

but i don't have found yet a real reason to choose a tiled wm instead a fluxbox!!

i try to give them a shot, maybe i will change my mind

lifeafter2am · 2009-06-18 15:42:24

Just to get you started:

http://xmonad.org/tour.html

kleister · 2009-06-20 21:44:20

i use wmii and i'm quite happy with it. some reasons:
- it's FAST! (ok, fluxbox is too...)
- you don't need your mouse anymore, except for browsing. this also gets you independent from these tiny and uncomfy touchpads that net-/notebooks have. makes the use even faster
- on my eee pc with small screen and so it's nice if you have no frames around the windows to get some more space...
- you're cooler when you use one. kidding

heleos · 2009-06-20 21:55:09

pekwm is fun, a lot like the *boxes.
I used xmonad for a time, but the config was confusing (i don't know haskell, but I don't know lua either)
I'm currently using awesome, and it's nice because it's doesn't completely get rid of the mouse, you can still use it to click tabs, and swap windows around while in tiled mode. It also has a built-in status bar including a systray, which is useful for some people (like me). I also find lua easier to understand then haskell, but that's just a personal opinion

Last edited by heleos (2009-06-20 21:55:30)

gazj · 2009-06-20 22:02:44

If like me you prefer fluxbox over openbox because of the easy config files (I hate xml) then I would go with ratpoison, it is so simple to configure, also with awesome and friends, everytime you get a popup box, all the windows change positions, it annoys the hell out of me. But thats me It's your choice!

heleos · 2009-06-20 22:45:38

gazj wrote:

also with awesome and friends, everytime you get a popup box, all the windows change positions, it annoys the hell out of me. But thats me It's your choice!

Not in awesome. Most popup boxes are set to float

Xeo84 · 2009-06-21 07:42:19

thank you to all guys!

I will try awesome and wmii on my nc10!!!

gazj · 2009-06-21 08:12:32

heleos wrote:

gazj wrote:
also with awesome and friends, everytime you get a popup box, all the windows change positions, it annoys the hell out of me. But thats me It's your choice!
Not in awesome. Most popup boxes are set to float

I must admit it has been a while since I used awesome, around version2. It has some great features I just can't get on with the config file.

esodax · 2009-06-21 12:05:18

Awesome really is awesome. Then I realized how much time I spent on my config file, fixing, tweaking and keeping up with the API changes.
But I guess it's easier if you stay close to the default config file.
When the API stabilized I might give it another shot.

I'm using Scrotwm now. It's not awesome, but that's why I'm using it, obviously.

Intrepid · 2009-06-22 02:32:24

Actually, once I fixed my rc.lua for Awesome version 3.2 I haven't had any errors or noticed any API tweaks. My setup is not far from the default, but for my purposes it is perfect. I highly suggest awesome with some minor tweaks e.g. setting new windows as slave unless it matches the class of a window you want to be in the master area. This sort of thing along with all the other automation make awesome a must-have for me. Compiz with its quality plugins are a close second due to functionality.

Maki · 2009-06-22 03:12:26

you can't really compare fluxbox & pekwm to awesome and xmonad. the first are stacking wm's, and the later are tiling.

fluxbox is rather old and has some quirks here and there, i haven't tried pekwm.

Xmonad is nice, really configurable, but being in haskell and not having an proper setup after installation makes it litle edgy, awesome uses a easier to learn scripting language, works almost out of the box and has bunch of cool stuff.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-06-18 13:45:02

fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#2 2009-06-18 13:50:01

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#3 2009-06-18 13:50:23

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#4 2009-06-18 13:57:15

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#5 2009-06-18 13:58:35

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#6 2009-06-18 15:42:24

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#7 2009-06-20 21:44:20

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#8 2009-06-20 21:55:09

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#9 2009-06-20 22:02:44

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#10 2009-06-20 22:45:38

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#11 2009-06-21 07:42:19

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#12 2009-06-21 08:12:32

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#13 2009-06-21 12:05:18

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#14 2009-06-22 02:32:24

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

#15 2009-06-22 03:12:26

Re: fluxbox, awesome, xmonad or pekwm ?

Board footer