automatic vs manual tiling

andre.ramaciotti · 2010-03-07 13:49:22

Inspired by the topic Awesome vs Xmonad, I'd like to know your opinion about automatic (like awesome, xmonad and dwm) and manual (like rat poison and stumpwm) tiling managers. Why do you prefer one over the other?

I use an automatic one (xmonad), but I've never spent much time with manual one, so my opinion isn't really valid.

Last edited by andre.ramaciotti (2010-03-07 15:43:47)

JohannesSM64 · 2010-03-07 14:02:24

From using Musca some I've found I prefer manual tiling, for the greater control over window sizes. However, dwm feels more complete and mature, so I'll stick with it for at least another while. I know there's Ratpoison, but I don't like having to switch to another WM to ever float anything.

Last edited by JohannesSM64 (2010-03-07 14:03:23)

keenerd · 2010-03-07 14:46:09

andre.ramaciotti wrote:

I'd like to know your opinion about dynamic (like awesome, xmonad and dwm) and manual (like rat poison and stumpwm) tiling managers.

Could you not use the word "dynamic" here? All tiling window managers are dynamic. What does "dynamic" mean then? Constantly changes and progresses. You change the size of one window, and other windows also change size.

Every single tiling window manager that can put two windows side by side describes itself as dynamic, even manual tilers.

I can only think of one exception, Windows 1.0, where windows could not overlap (tiling!) but you had to resize each window individually. Maybe it was Mac OS 1.0. Something from almost 30 years ago.

andre.ramaciotti · 2010-03-07 14:58:14

I used the terms that are commonly used. You can see that both wikipedia and the arch wiki use these terms.

As I see, the difference isn't how they react to changes in windows size, but how they react when new windows appear.

edit: anyway, what terms would you use? I'll change the names I used if someone gives a good suggestion.

Last edited by andre.ramaciotti (2010-03-07 14:59:54)

keenerd · 2010-03-07 15:19:35

People are using the terms wrong :-) Case in point, try to find a tiler that describes itself as "manual and non-dynamic" or "manual and static". There is no such thing. It is a shame people have latched onto a false dichotomy. I'm probably tilting windmills at this point, but such is the life of a pendant.

A better term, already in use by some WMs, is automatic. This only describes the layout algorithms. Either you have full manual control over the layout or preconfigured (but usually resizable) layouts are applied automatically.

Last edited by keenerd (2010-03-07 15:35:11)

andre.ramaciotti · 2010-03-07 15:45:48

Replaced. I also like the term 'automatic' better.

And now back to the question.

barzam · 2010-03-07 15:49:28

I use Awesome and I prefer the preconfigured (good term) tiling used there. I have a small 10" screen so I normally run one application per tag and swtich between them, so it's not even tiled.

Army · 2010-03-07 16:54:49

I started with musca, then tried several others and there's no other one I like more than musca, it's so great to use this tiler, you have full control over everything. Of course there are still many things to improve (i3 for example has some strong advantages over musca, but it still doesn't _feel_ that good)

delcake · 2010-03-07 18:42:18

I have to throw my vote in for manual tiling now too. I've played around with most tiling WMs now, but musca was the first one that easily let me do everything I want. I tend to want crazy layouts for all my command line utilities and musca was really the only WM that I could get to do it all by itself.

However, I'm running wmii on my desktop on my second monitor and second X session since musca segfaults in this situation. I pick up the slack on the layout using terminator's vertical or horizontal splits to achieve the same layout I had before in musca. Not the "ideal" setup since I can't make terminator automagically split it's window upon running like I can just make musca do.

JohannesSM64 · 2010-03-08 03:51:19

Tried tmux? Besides being a terminal multiplexer and session manager it also has manual tiling.

bind C-j down-pane
bind C-k up-pane
bind J resize-pane -D 3
bind K resize-pane -U 3
bind H resize-pane -L 3
bind L resize-pane -R 3
bind M-j swap-pane -D
bind M-k swap-pane -U

Last edited by JohannesSM64 (2010-03-08 04:21:04)

delcake · 2010-03-08 04:57:37

Huh, I'd heard of tmux before but wasn't aware you could tile with it. Looks like I'll have to give it a go!

JackH79 · 2010-03-08 07:46:08

I'm using "awesome". Usually the preconfigured layouts suit me well enough. However, when they don't, awesome let's me resize windows to my liking so that I never get to the point where I miss the manual tiling feature. Also, due to having different workspaces I don't feel no need to fiddle around with manual layouts as it never gets cluttered.

zarkone · 2014-04-18 10:45:01

http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/Aero_snap

fsckd · 2014-04-18 13:17:45

Welcome to the forums zarkone. Your post has been reported for necro-bumping. But since the topic and information is still relevant today, I am leaving it open.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-03-07 13:49:22

automatic vs manual tiling

#2 2010-03-07 14:02:24

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#3 2010-03-07 14:46:09

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#4 2010-03-07 14:58:14

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#5 2010-03-07 15:19:35

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#6 2010-03-07 15:45:48

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#7 2010-03-07 15:49:28

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#8 2010-03-07 16:54:49

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#9 2010-03-07 18:42:18

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#10 2010-03-08 03:51:19

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#11 2010-03-08 04:57:37

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#12 2010-03-08 07:46:08

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#13 2014-04-18 10:45:01

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

#14 2014-04-18 13:17:45

Re: automatic vs manual tiling

Board footer