5 ms·

I've used i3 on top of ubuntu 18.04 gnome for the past 4 years, and it's been mostly a positive experience. Pros: - Updates are consistent, very rarely do I ex

I've used i3 on top of ubuntu 18.04 gnome for the past 4 years, and it's been mostly a positive experience. Pros: - Updates are consistent, very rarely do I experience a bug - Configuration is straightforward and flexible; simple yet very customizable - Integrates well with plugins like polybar (customizable toolbar) and rofi (tui app launcher) - Easy to position windows across multiple monitors Cons: - Very barebones - Difficult to configure apps that use multiple floating windows, splash screens, dynamic docks (gimp, eclipse, teams) - Programs can grab focus way too easily - Lacks smooth transition of control between windowed and floating modes I wished there was a wm that gave me the simplicity, stability, and snappiness of i3, but with better floating window support, and context menus to configure common window properties

eismcc 4y ago
I discovered i3 when looking for tiling solution and found it remarkably productive.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  Ditto. But I think the issue is that it does things its way, so you have to be OK with not insisting on doing things how you used to. This was the biggest hurdle for me. But now I love it so much and have become so accustomed to its way of managing windows that I find myself mechanically reaching for my mod key whenever I'm on a different WM. I even find it irritating, when on macOS or Windows, to have to grab the window, move it around, adjust its size, etc. Bonus points for the new style Windows windows with controls integrated in the title bar and next to no area to grab.
ducktective 4y ago
>rofi (tui app launcher) rofi and dmenu are not TUI but built on top of lean native graphics APIs (`cairo` for rofi and `X11` in case of dmenu)
rollcat 4y ago
> I wished there was a wm that gave me the simplicity, stability, and snappiness of i3, but with better floating window support, and context menus to configure common window properties I think the "traditional" family of tiling window managers (like ratpoison, awesome, dwm, xmonad, i3, etc) are kind of simplistic in their assumptions that 1. they can at any time force any window into any size and position, and 2. they must always force every window into some size and position. In my opinion, a good algorithm of where to place a window (and what size to use) would go like: 1. Where the user expects it (e.g. last position) 2. Where it doesn't obscure anything else (optimal use of screen real estate without forcing a specific size/position/layout) 3. Wherever the application thinks it's best (the WM should never need to hardcode/configure rules like "GIMP is like this" or "xcalc works best with that") As for automatic tiling, I'm a big fan of what Windows is doing, and would love the traditional tiling WMs to iterate on this idea, while recognising floating windows as first-class citizens.
- inclemnet 4y ago
  > I think the "traditional" family of tiling window managers (like ratpoison, awesome, dwm, xmonad, i3, etc) are kind of simplistic in their assumptions that 1. they can at any time force any window into any size and position, and 2. they must always force every window into some size and position. Interestingly I like tiling window managers due to specifically the opposite perspective, that applications are often selfish in their assumption that they can display themselves wherever they like and I much prefer ignoring their (usually-wrong) assumptions about what's best. I don't mean that argumentatively, just a different preference I guess. In this respect I even agree with the first two steps of your algorithm - it's just that "in my tiling layout" is the result of both of them!
  - rollcat 4y ago
    > Interestingly I like tiling window managers due to specifically the opposite perspective, that applications are often selfish in their assumption that they can display themselves wherever they like and I much prefer ignoring their (usually-wrong) assumptions about what's best. It really depends on your perspective I guess, but I'm of the exact opposite opinion: the window manager has no way of knowing what is the optimal size for an application window, because if it did, it'd be trying too hard to do the application's job. Say I'd like to display a picture in a separate "preview" window. The picture could be larger, or roughly equal, to the available screen space: in this case the optimal size for the window is to take up as much space as there is available (not necessarily full screen - you may want to keep another window open and visible). But if the picture is smaller, making a bigger window would just waste the screen real estate. The window manager has no way of knowing these things - it can either trust the application to make the right call, or disregard it, in the latter case making it the user's problem. I work on a 43 inch screen and most "traditional" tiling WMs are completely unusable, precisely because their assumptions about optimal window sizes are almost always completely wrong. In my opinion, even on a smaller screen, if you need your window manager to constantly "fix" what your application is doing, then the application sucks. If a window manager can only assume all applications suck, then it itself, must also suck for applications that don't. It's a no-win scenario - you need to be able to trust your software.

eismcc 4y ago

I discovered i3 when looking for tiling solution and found it remarkably productive.

vladvasiliu 4y ago
Ditto. But I think the issue is that it does things its way, so you have to be OK with not insisting on doing things how you used to. This was the biggest hurdle for me. But now I love it so much and have become so accustomed to its way of managing windows that I find myself mechanically reaching for my mod key whenever I'm on a different WM. I even find it irritating, when on macOS or Windows, to have to grab the window, move it around, adjust its size, etc. Bonus points for the new style Windows windows with controls integrated in the title bar and next to no area to grab.

ducktective 4y ago

>rofi (tui app launcher) rofi and dmenu are not TUI but built on top of lean native graphics APIs (`cairo` for rofi and `X11` in case of dmenu)

rollcat 4y ago

> I wished there was a wm that gave me the simplicity, stability, and snappiness of i3, but with better floating window support, and context menus to configure common window properties I think the "traditional" family of tiling window managers (like ratpoison, awesome, dwm, xmonad, i3, etc) are kind of simplistic in their assumptions that 1. they can at any time force any window into any size and position, and 2. they must always force every window into some size and position. In my opinion, a good algorithm of where to place a window (and what size to use) would go like: 1. Where the user expects it (e.g. last position) 2. Where it doesn't obscure anything else (optimal use of screen real estate without forcing a specific size/position/layout) 3. Wherever the application thinks it's best (the WM should never need to hardcode/configure rules like "GIMP is like this" or "xcalc works best with that") As for automatic tiling, I'm a big fan of what Windows is doing, and would love the traditional tiling WMs to iterate on this idea, while recognising floating windows as first-class citizens.

inclemnet 4y ago
> I think the "traditional" family of tiling window managers (like ratpoison, awesome, dwm, xmonad, i3, etc) are kind of simplistic in their assumptions that 1. they can at any time force any window into any size and position, and 2. they must always force every window into some size and position. Interestingly I like tiling window managers due to specifically the opposite perspective, that applications are often selfish in their assumption that they can display themselves wherever they like and I much prefer ignoring their (usually-wrong) assumptions about what's best. I don't mean that argumentatively, just a different preference I guess. In this respect I even agree with the first two steps of your algorithm - it's just that "in my tiling layout" is the result of both of them!
- rollcat 4y ago
  > Interestingly I like tiling window managers due to specifically the opposite perspective, that applications are often selfish in their assumption that they can display themselves wherever they like and I much prefer ignoring their (usually-wrong) assumptions about what's best. It really depends on your perspective I guess, but I'm of the exact opposite opinion: the window manager has no way of knowing what is the optimal size for an application window, because if it did, it'd be trying too hard to do the application's job. Say I'd like to display a picture in a separate "preview" window. The picture could be larger, or roughly equal, to the available screen space: in this case the optimal size for the window is to take up as much space as there is available (not necessarily full screen - you may want to keep another window open and visible). But if the picture is smaller, making a bigger window would just waste the screen real estate. The window manager has no way of knowing these things - it can either trust the application to make the right call, or disregard it, in the latter case making it the user's problem. I work on a 43 inch screen and most "traditional" tiling WMs are completely unusable, precisely because their assumptions about optimal window sizes are almost always completely wrong. In my opinion, even on a smaller screen, if you need your window manager to constantly "fix" what your application is doing, then the application sucks. If a window manager can only assume all applications suck, then it itself, must also suck for applications that don't. It's a no-win scenario - you need to be able to trust your software.