What's wrong with dwm?

Allamgir · 2009-07-15 23:29:32

I'm currently using xmonad on Arch 64-bit, but recently it has been giving me problems (like I can't edit my xmonad.hs without breaking xmonad, and more). Plus, haskell is not exactly my idea of fun. I've been considering dwm to replace it, but I don't know much about it and the attitude that suckless.org implies is not friendly at all. "No novices asking stupid questions", and the like.

I don't know any C, or any programming for that matter, and I haven't found a guide for dwm like this xmonad guide, or much documentation at all.

Nevertheless, dwm still remains attractive. The only thing is, I've seen a few posts floating around about dwm not being as great as it used to be. I'm sorry I can't provide links to actual posts, but I've seen a few that say dwm is only a good base for new WMs, but isn't really suited to everyday desktop usage.

What!? I thought a bunch of Archers used dwm / are dwm fans! (Btw, who out there is using it?) While I'm sorry to break the declaration of "No novices asking stupid questions", I'd like to ask: Would I be able to configure dwm without any programming knowledge? Also, in the ArchWiki article for dwm it states that building with ABS is recommended. Does that provide easy updating like pacman? I wouldn't imagine so, but if it doesn't, how are other Archers keeping track of dwm updates? Does it break the config with new updates like I've heard awesome does?

I know those are probably noobish questions and some of you are probably thinking something along the lines of "This guy should not use dwm. Dwm is ONLY for badasses who configure C with their eyes closed" (I hope not), but I've been struggling to find some configuration documentation or guides for new users.

I know this post is going all over the place, but back to my original question: Is/are there something/things wrong with dwm I should know before using it?

cdwillis · 2009-07-15 23:34:50

I'm pretty much clueless when it comes to any kind of programming and I use dwm. The default configuration works for me, I just added some preferences for what apps I want floating and changed the colors up. I couldn't figure out xmonad right off the bat.``

Allamgir · 2009-07-15 23:52:06

That's good to hear. Btw, now I feel like an idiot because I looked at the very bottom of the dwm archwiki page and found some guides to help me get started *facepalm*.

But really, suckless.org really does nothing to get rid of the "linux users are elitist snobs" impression. I don't think it's trying to, but it really scares off people who probably could use the software.

Anyway I'm trying out dwm. IT IS SO FAST! And since C is a common language it shouldn't be too hard to find good documentation that will help, right?

iphitus · 2009-07-16 00:18:18

Look at the dwm config and you'll realise how basic it is, and theres examples all over the place. No need to be looking around for references to C.

rson451 · 2009-07-16 00:29:42

Allamgir wrote:

That's good to hear. Btw, now I feel like an idiot because I looked at the very bottom of the dwm archwiki page and found some guides to help me get started *facepalm*.
But really, suckless.org really does nothing to get rid of the "linux users are elitist snobs" impression. I don't think it's trying to, but it really scares off people who probably could use the software.
Anyway I'm trying out dwm. IT IS SO FAST! And since C is a common language it shouldn't be too hard to find good documentation that will help, right?

The reason that statement is there is to keep people from cluttering up their mailing list with questions they don't want to answer. They expect their users to be of a certain caliber -- or be willing to figure things out on their own -- and there's nothing wrong with that.

Allamgir · 2009-07-16 00:40:29

Oh phew. Now that I'm starting to configure dwm, I'm realizing how easy it actually is. I'm just wondering how updates are going to work. If I'm doing all the compiling manually with abs, how will I know when a new version is out, and how do I easily update? Is there even a need to update dwm often, or can I wait months or so?

rson451 · 2009-07-16 00:46:40

I'm still using dwm 4.7, so there is not necessarily any reason to update. I'd suggest you subscribe to dev@suckless.org if you decide to use dwm full time. You'll get the latest patches and can get involved in the decision making about how things should work. There is tons of stupid shit on the list since they merged the dwm and wmii lists, but it's still worth being subscribed imo.

Allamgir · 2009-07-16 02:22:09

Thanks for the tip. It's getting late so i'm done for the day, but later I'll configure dwm to my liking and start using it full time.

whordijk · 2009-07-16 09:07:50

I'm using dwm for about a week or two now. I used to use the GNOME DE, then went on to having a standalone WM: from OpenBox to Awesome and finally dwm. I have absolutely no programming skills at all: yet looking at the provided default configuration files, I manage to adjust the things that are needed to be adjusted in order to configure the WM to my likings. Whether it were .xml files (OpenBox and yes I know: xml is no programming language ), .lua files (Awesome) or .c files (dwm): every basic configuration file is readable to some extent, and it becomes obvious how to change basic settings, even without any knowledge of the language the files are written in.

dwm provides a very basic environment, and as far as I'm concerned, it's enough for daily use. It is true that it is limited in comparison to other WMs that extend dwm, like Awesome, but therefore not unusable.

Take a look at the dwm configuration thread to get some ideas. If you have any trouble configuring, you can always ask people in that thread.

EDIT: I was able to upgrade my dwm 5.5 abs install to 5.6 using sudo pacman -Syu today (which I did): nice to know

Last edited by whordijk (2009-07-16 13:06:49)

Allamgir · 2009-07-16 22:34:30

Pacman is trying to update my dwm to 5.6, too. But doesn't that make it harder to edit config.h and recompile? Isn't it best to set pacman to ignore dwm or something?

I followed the arch wiki and I currently use my ~/dwm directory to edit config.h and recompile. I need to know if pacman will mess things up.

rson451 · 2009-07-16 22:54:06

The accepted way of running dwm around these parts is to build it yourself. If you still want it managed by pacman, I suggest changing the package name when building the package, or putting IgnorePkg dwm in your pacman.conf.

iphitus · 2009-07-17 00:51:29

Allamgir wrote:

Pacman is trying to update my dwm to 5.6, too. But doesn't that make it harder to edit config.h and recompile? Isn't it best to set pacman to ignore dwm or something?
I followed the arch wiki and I currently use my ~/dwm directory to edit config.h and recompile. I need to know if pacman will mess things up.

I do something similar, I build it in ~/projects/dwm, and have a symlink to ~/projects/dwm/dwm in ~/bin, which is in my path and gets executed by .xinitrc. Pacman doesnt know nor care about it and won't touch a thing.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-07-15 23:29:32

What's wrong with dwm?

#2 2009-07-15 23:34:50

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#3 2009-07-15 23:52:06

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#4 2009-07-16 00:18:18

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#5 2009-07-16 00:29:42

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#6 2009-07-16 00:40:29

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#7 2009-07-16 00:46:40

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#8 2009-07-16 02:22:09

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#9 2009-07-16 09:07:50

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#10 2009-07-16 22:34:30

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#11 2009-07-16 22:54:06

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

#12 2009-07-17 00:51:29

Re: What's wrong with dwm?

Board footer