Window manager - pros and cons

thisllub · 2009-08-18 06:18:37

opothehippo wrote:

I mostly use openbox, but I'm not completely happy with it. The xml files are a pain to read, and you have to use your mouse a lot

linkmaster03 wrote:

Cons:
- Uses the mouse a lot
- XML configurations can be messy

This is the opposite to my experience.
Install gmrun and you bind it to an easy key combination (I use Win-Z).
You get an instant lightweight bash completion style launcher.

You can cut a lot of mouse usage if you put some key bindings like this in.
I have quite a few more.

    <keybind key="W-w">
      <action name="MoveResizeTo">
        <monitor>1</monitor>
        <height>1000</height>
        <width>1200</width>
        <x>+0</x>
        <y>+0</y>
      </action>
    </keybind>


    <keybind key="W-h">
      <action name="MoveToEdgeWest"/>
    </keybind>
    <keybind key="W-k">
      <action name="MoveToEdgeNorth"/>
    </keybind>
    <keybind key="W-j">
      <action name="MoveToEdgeSouth"/>
    </keybind>
    <keybind key="W-l">
      <action name="MoveToEdgeEast"/>
    </keybind>

Murray_B · 2009-08-18 07:13:34

Very interesting, how many people uses tiling WMs! I really would like to see how people work with it, I really can't imagine it.
I am (nearly) always using xfce as a tiling WM with tabs (like ion): all windows are fullscreen and the tabs are in the taskbar :-P

Do the tiling-WM-user use mostly console apps or GUI apps?

I thought about it and there are 2 more things which are important for me:
1) standard support, so everything works together well
2) usable by my girl-friend...

mikesd · 2009-08-18 08:25:56

Currently using xmonad. Previously have used gnome, fluxbox, openbox and once played with awesome for 5 minutes.

xmonad
pro:
Very stable.
Great dual head support.
Dynamic window management seems to suit me more than manual window management.*
Used by Bono from U2. **

con:
I would be able to achieve a lot more if I was more proficient at Haskell.

In the future I would like to look at scrotwm, evilwm and take another run at stumpwm. I like lisp better than haskell and think I would pick it up faster.

* I was showing a Mac guy my xmonad setup yesterday and as I was demonstrating tiling, dynamic window management, tiling and untiling by opening and closing terminals, firefox, etc I was struck by just how cool that is. I think I take it for granted but it is just the most productive way to work for me.

** ok. I made that one up.

esodax · 2009-08-18 11:47:51

I have been using i3 for 3 hours now
Surprisingly good I have to say.

pros ::
- Column stacking like feature.
- Dynamic workspaces/tags.
- Semi-manual layout handling as I expect it.
- Uses the XCB library instead of XLIB (like awesome do).
- Interesting future ahead of it (http://i3.zekjur.net/).

cons ::
- Confusing default keybindings (maybe familiar to wmii users?).
- Keybindings with keycodes.
- Tricky floating window resizing.
- No keybindings for resizing.
- And no vertical resize support in default mode.

Well, this was my first impression anyway.
Scrotwm and Awesome is other tiling WM's that i like to use.

celettu · 2009-08-18 14:57:58

Openbox.

Pro:

- Stable
- Fast, lightweight
- Easy configuration (the xml rc.conf may be messy, but it's easy)
- "Native" tools like Obconf, Obmenu en Obkeys make config even easier
- Sane defaults
- Mouse? I don't need no stinkin mouse. I have keybindings.
- Standards compliant

Contra:

- No pixmap based themes. It's stupid, but that's the only thing I really miss.

Atsutane · 2009-08-19 11:49:39

esodax wrote:

I have been using i3 for 3 hours now
Surprisingly good I have to say.
[...]
cons ::
- Confusing default keybindings (maybe familiar to wmii users?).
- Keybindings with keycodes.
- Tricky floating window resizing.
- No keybindings for resizing.
- And no vertical resize support in default mode.

Do you use the stable or the git version?

Well with the next stable release (3.c / 3.γ) it is possible to use keysymbols to bind the keys to commands, though I recommend using the git version as you get fixes and features earlier and it's very rarely in an unstable state¹.

¹ I had only problems when there were again some libxcb API changes that broke even awesome, which is developed by the same main dev.

tkdfighter · 2009-08-19 12:07:09

Window manager - pros and cons? Let's see ...

Pros:
- Can view fancy graphics
- can manage applications more efficiently (debatable)
- can navigate with mouse
- can easily embed images in text

Cons:
- have to install Xorg
- more frequent crashes due to higher abstraction layer
- have to use video drivers which are not always feature complete (yet)
- wastes more time that using simple commands

What else?

insanemal · 2009-08-19 12:16:46

drelyn86 wrote:

I'll be the n00b of the bunch...
Gnome w/ Compiz!!!
Pros:
~Rivals the other OS's in eye-candy
~Zoom-plugin is extremely useful for flash videos without fullscreen
~Other highly-useful plugins such as Expo, Scale (w/ Scale Addons), Tile, and Grid
~easy and powerful configuration
Cons:
~Just say no to an ATI card (esp. w/ opengl applications)
~High memory (see below)
~Not mouse-free (see below)
~not enough 1980's-like appearances (lol, just a jab)
Other [debatable] thoughts:
~High memory usage? Compared to your lightweight and/or tiling WM's: yes, Compiz appears bloated. Compared to Windows Vista or 7... not so much...
~Not mouse-free: It could definitely be configured to be mouse-free, but should it really be a con that you have to use your mouse anyway?

Im with you.
Mind you, I work for a company that does IT support for only windows users. And they don't like linux. I'm also on a laptop.
And I am competing with Win7. So I need all the Bell's and wistles. As well as making so that if somebody HAS to use my pc (theirs crashed again ) They wont be WTF where is the Start menu.

esodax · 2009-08-19 12:42:13

Atsutane wrote:

Do you use the stable or the git version?
Well with the next stable release (3.c / 3.γ) it is possible to use keysymbols to bind the keys to commands, though I recommend using the git version as you get fixes and features earlier and it's very rarely in an unstable state¹.
¹ I had only problems when there were again some libxcb API changes that broke even awesome, which is developed by the same main dev.

I just recently switched to the git version. The only real problem I had so far
is when I close the last Firefox/Vimperator window (Shift+zz) it sometimes,
although rarely, hangs i3 completly. It's possible to zap the X server and
restart however. Might only be a firefox problem, so I have to investigate this
further berfore I say anything more.

Anyway, I'm using i3 as my main WM now. Fits my workflow perfectly. And the small
client-focus problems I had with Awesome-git doesn't exist in i3.

Thanks for maintaining the i3 packages by the way, great work.

AdrenalineJunky · 2009-08-19 14:33:22

i'm using kwin (in xfce at the moment... kinda wierd i know)

pros:

- looks good, lots of cool eye candy effects
- present windows
- just works, i don't have to edit my xorg conf to make the window borders show up (compiz....)
- easy graphical keybinding setup
- stable
- not horribly demanding of system resources ( 8.9mb ram usage right now, and > 4% cpu usage even while doing something with 3d effects)

cons:
- not the lightest wieght window manager around (though its plenty fast on my system)
- not quite as configurable as some (openbox for example)
- not as many 3d options as compiz

Last edited by AdrenalineJunky (2009-08-19 14:33:35)

cardinals_fan · 2009-08-22 01:04:02

Oh well, so much for musca. The virtual desktop support just started to feel ugly and hackish. So I'll raise a glass for dwm:

Pros
+ ridiculously simple to use, configure, tweak, break, alter, etc.
+ stable
+ simple, no-nonsense tiling and workspace management
+ very lightweight

Cons
- the bar... (although you can remove it if you screw with the code)
- slightly weaker floating support

skottish · 2009-08-22 02:30:36

Workstation, openbox:

Pros: It's openbox. It does everything the way it should with absolute stability

Cons: XML makes me barf, makes my eyeballs bleed, and prevents me from ever finding peace and happiness.

Netbook, musca:

Pros: Perfect blend of simplicity and power. Very stable. Great 'local' community.

Cons: No complaints that are musca specific really.

np · 2009-08-22 14:58:08

cardinals_fan wrote:

Cons
- the bar... (although you can remove it if you screw with the code)

That's a little bit harsh to have as a con - mod-b toggles it on and off...

cardinals_fan · 2009-08-22 16:00:27

> That's a little bit harsh to have as a con - mod-b toggles it on and off...

Doing that every time I login gets old really fast...

np · 2009-08-23 15:05:24

cardinals_fan wrote:

> That's a little bit harsh to have as a con - mod-b toggles it on and off...
Doing that every time I login gets old really fast...

It's changing one word in config.h! :

static const Bool showbar = True; /* False means no bar */

cardinals_fan · 2009-08-23 17:07:00

^ I'm an idiot. I went through dwm.c to remove it when it was right there all along

hatten · 2009-08-23 20:08:22

+1 for musca.
I haven't even touched the configuration file, the defaults are very good.
Small, dmenu pwns, no wasted screenspace.

TomWitko · 2009-08-23 20:33:54

I use mostly Gnome.

Pros , very familar to other ahummm in appearence and useage.
A good window manager for new users as its easy to set up and use.

Cons might not be as fun as others.

Ha ha its better than winsows XP and Vista.

descendent87 · 2009-08-23 20:50:11

Was using openbox but read about the window grouping in pekwm so decided to give it a try, stuck with it since.
I find the config files a lot easier to read/edit than openbox (which is good as unlike openbox there are no graphical programs to do it)
Couldn't live without window grouping now, I use it for nearly everything.
Apart from that it's pretty similar to openbox.
Haven't really found any cons yet, about the only thing was lack of graphical tools to edit config files but after a quick read through the documentation it's all simple to do

cerbie · 2009-08-23 22:07:24

I use Openbox and Compiz. I'm getting used to not using the top window edges, now, so Compiz is working OK (I still consider it a retarded design bug).
...except that my poor old notebook's video doesn't work with it, so it gets Openbox. Kind of good, and light, but...XML is a good standard for limited kinds of data exchange, and basically nothing else. If I couldn't copy and paste most config file bits I wanted from the web, I'd learn to use another WM.

I haven't relied on a normal panel since about when I went to Windows 2000, and have only gone more minimal/weird from there (here's was the last thing I finished before my switch to Linux). I can't terribly fault KDE and the like, but they take up screen real estate that I can use for more lines of text, and autohide features are hardly ever implemented well enough to put up with them (XFce's is the best, IMO, though).

As for Compiz: it's snappy, stable, and expo (puts workspaces in grid filling the screen) and scale (Expose clone) are simply killer, IMO. It just takes a little time to configure it away from just eye-candy. I now run it straight, with parcellite started hidden (I run XFce's panel if I need tray access for a bit). The GUI has almost all the useful configurations right there, to be poked at and checked off, then it just goes along, doing nothing much, until I hit the right key combo or flick my mouse the right way. No XML for me to see. Hardware limitations are really all I can think of as negatives for Compiz.

I'm trying to like tiling WMs (particularly Xmonad and Awesome), but they do feel awfully weird. I can't deny the efficiency, as has already been explicated ITT, but I have so many years of floating WM habits built up that I can't use them daily, yet. Especially with Xmonad, it's much more an issue of training than any failing in the WM.

If I have to use a DE, E17 w/ Be focus > KDE 3.5 > XFce > KDE 4 > E17 stock > * > Gnome. E17 can be a bit annoying to configure, sometimes, and maximizing does not work right, but with the focus settings done like BeOS, it's a crappy glidepoint's (redundant) best friend, works well on terrible hardware, and is pretty intuitive.

Last edited by cerbie (2009-08-23 22:17:53)

ThomasAdam · 2009-08-23 22:19:30

FVWM. Because I like MWM?

-- Thomas Adam

sand_man · 2009-08-23 23:44:28

No one has mentioned twm? lol

Saint0fCloud · 2009-08-24 01:30:10

awesome

Pros:
- fast and light
- nice hybrid between a tiling wm and floating wm
- extremely custamizable with an easy config file (IMO compared to xmonad)
- extensible with several lua libraries

Cons:
- Ever changing config syntax (it's been getting better though)
- Lacks the simplicity of DWM
- Incredibly ugly default window titlebars, avoid enabling them at all cost

Other than awesome I enjoy using scrotwm, evilwm, dwm, and ever so rarely KDE as well.

RagePie · 2009-08-24 13:37:23

I like Evilwm. It is small, has virtual desktops, no config files, and great keyboard support.

RagePie · 2009-08-24 13:38:00

sand_man wrote:

No one has mentioned twm? lol

I like Twm, actually, just not as much as Evilwm.

Arch Linux

#26 2009-08-18 06:18:37

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#27 2009-08-18 07:13:34

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#28 2009-08-18 08:25:56

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#29 2009-08-18 11:47:51

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#30 2009-08-18 14:57:58

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#31 2009-08-19 11:49:39

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#32 2009-08-19 12:07:09

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#33 2009-08-19 12:16:46

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#34 2009-08-19 12:42:13

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#35 2009-08-19 14:33:22

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#36 2009-08-22 01:04:02

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#37 2009-08-22 02:30:36

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#38 2009-08-22 14:58:08

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#39 2009-08-22 16:00:27

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#40 2009-08-23 15:05:24

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#41 2009-08-23 17:07:00

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#42 2009-08-23 20:08:22

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#43 2009-08-23 20:33:54

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#44 2009-08-23 20:50:11

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#45 2009-08-23 22:07:24

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#46 2009-08-23 22:19:30

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#47 2009-08-23 23:44:28

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#48 2009-08-24 01:30:10

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#49 2009-08-24 13:37:23

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

#50 2009-08-24 13:38:00

Re: Window manager - pros and cons

Board footer