Talk:Comparison of tiling window managers

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 16:32, 3 April 2010 by Niv (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Need a brief 'Advantages:, Disadvantages:' blurb for each WM. Misfit138 18:27, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I'm working on Misfit138's point above, but could somebody add something on Ion3? I've never used it, and don't know much about it. --SamC 20:51, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I'm going to add several other tiling WMs once I get all the information about them for the comparison table cdwillis:

|- ! evilwm | C++ || C++ || Dynamic || None || No || Built-in, reads from root window name || No

|- ! larswm | C || C || Dynamic || None || No || Built-in, reads from root window name || No

|- ! qtile | C || Python || Dynamic || None || No || Built-in, reads from root window name || No

|- ! subtle | C || Lua || Dynamic || None || No || Built-in, reads from root window name || No


I would avoid adding EvilWM, as it's not tiling. --SamC 18:59, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

It's not really correct to say that Ratpoison, Stumpwm and Musca does not support system tray. It's really easy to set them to use panels like lxpanel or something like this. Also, wmii is not strongly manual window manager. It's in some reasone closer to dynamic ones.

Musca for now can use usual config file ~/.musca_start that is much like ratpoison's one.

The words "dynamic" vs "manual" are confusing, since all tiling wms by definition are dynamic (change one window, and bordering windows change). a better word imho, would be "automatic" vs "manual", as in automatic window placement in contrast to manual window placement.