Objective comparison of tiling WMs?

Tentaclius · 2009-05-25 19:59:08

I used Ion3, Wmii, Ratpoison, Musca, Stumpwm and some others tiling wm for some time.
They are all so cool. It's so hard to choose one. Every has each own unique features.
But for now Musca is my choise. I like to work with one window at time and split view when needed.
Musca does this mostly like Vim or Emacs does. Only problem for me, when i started to use this like wm, was that i can't see all windows, that are running at a time. The decision was to use lxpannel. It was really easy to set up in Musca and StumpWM, and it helps a lot.

Tentaclius · 2009-05-25 20:05:44

Also i has one question, that i can't decide myself.
Please, tell me what principally differs XMonad and, for example, Awesome, but configure style?
Has it real so unique features, that Awesome (or DWM) hasn't?
I just can't understand, why so many people choose xmonad. I can't see it's advantage but that it's written in haskell (it's seems not advantage to me too).

But please understand me right. I don't think xmonad is some way worse, i just want understand for myself.

whordijk · 2009-05-25 20:14:13

I want to use dwm because of its elegance, but I find myself using Awesome. This is mainly because of the built in trayer, which is something I can't really stand to miss.

yvonney · 2009-05-25 21:24:00

stalonetray I think does the trayer thing.
AND used with:
dwm/dmenu
And: leo2501's VERY slick mods to dwm's config.h

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=55907

search on page for: my updated dwm config.h

REALLY made moving around with DWM way better than defaults for me.
Seems to work (config.h) with latest dwm though I'm interested in what might be logical to change due to recent dwm updates.
I have only basic skills and update/change DWM is about 30 seconds, following wiki 'recommended' portion of dwm guide.

Last edited by yvonney (2009-05-26 07:23:05)

Vintendo · 2009-05-25 21:27:04

Tentaclius wrote:

Also i has one question, that i can't decide myself.
Please, tell me what principally differs XMonad and, for example, Awesome, but configure style?
Has it real so unique features, that Awesome (or DWM) hasn't?
I just can't understand, why so many people choose xmonad. I can't see it's advantage but that it's written in haskell (it's seems not advantage to me too).
But please understand me right. I don't think xmonad is some way worse, i just want understand for myself.

The reason why I'm still using is the way it handles multiple screens.

Barghest · 2009-05-26 06:48:19

Currently I'm on awesome, too.

I took a look on dwm but I missed the feature to have different layouts on different tags (the pertag patch doesn't work on 5.5)

Arch Linux

#26 2009-05-25 19:59:08

Re: Objective comparison of tiling WMs?

#27 2009-05-25 20:05:44

Re: Objective comparison of tiling WMs?

#28 2009-05-25 20:14:13

Re: Objective comparison of tiling WMs?

#29 2009-05-25 21:24:00

Re: Objective comparison of tiling WMs?

#30 2009-05-25 21:27:04

Re: Objective comparison of tiling WMs?

#31 2009-05-26 06:48:19

Re: Objective comparison of tiling WMs?

Board footer