![]() ![]() They often come with a desktop shell, which is a place to hold your fancy shortcut icons, as well as other tools such as file managers. DEs typically provide a handful of applications bundled together to accomplish tasks in a graphical manner as opposed to using the command line. The difference between Window Managers and Desktop Environments is pretty simple - like kindergarten-style, stay within the lines while coloring simple.Ī Desktop Environment is a fully featured graphical user interface to aid with the interaction with your operating system. Desktops Environments and Window Managers, So what's the difference anyways? Catch us after the break to join the age-old battle of choosing your GUI. ![]() We're going to get you up to speed on what each of these actually are, some reasons why you'd want to choose a WM over a DE, as well as some of the options you have among the Window Managers out there. When you boil this topic down on the basic level, you've got two choices: Use a fully featured Desktop Environment (DE) with tons of bells and whistles, or alternatively you can use a slimmed-down and streamlined Window Manager (WM). Overall I think that dwm is a fine tilling window manager and I'm gonna stick with it till I have problems with it.When using Linux, or just about any open source operating system out there for that matter, there's a proverbial Santa's knapsack of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) available. I haven't had that problem with dwm so far, but I have with st and dmenu. This works well in a vacuum, but patches can fail and then dwm will have a hard time compiling. Rather than having seperate packages for i3 and i3-gaps, you get dwm, then patch wichever gaps patch you want. Although Luke Smith is making me think that might be a good thing.Īnother thing about dwm is it uses patches. So in the end it was a bit harder to get into. Except for small things, you have to figure it all out by reading the config/reading blog posts by other people like me. However.ĭwm was much harder to work with because unlike i3, it doesn't have amazing documentation. i3's idea is much better if you want to micromanage your windows dwm is good if you just want it to work. ![]() What i3 is trying to do is where you go and put down a terminal, then you set where the next terminal goes. In dwm it will have a master:stack layout where one terminal will have half the screen and the others will take the other half with there own rows. If on i3 you open 5 terminals, It will all be separate columns. This is obviously a bit harder than anything with i3.Īnother thing about dwm that is different is that it's dynamic. To make it show information, You make a script and then you loop it to run the xsetroot command every x seconds. Here is an example: xsetroot -name "DONT PANIC" ![]() To change it you use then xsetroot -name command. When you start it up without any customization you will notice that the bar at the top says the the version of Dwm. Here's my review.įor the past couple of weeks I have been running my new build of suckless's dwm (the dynamic window manager.) Unlike i3, it doesn't have any unnecessary features and all the configuration is done in the source code (pretty much where you edit the config file, compile it and then restart dwm.) Another thing about having the config i the source code is you can package it like what DIstrotube did. I've finally got to get Dwm usable and I stuck with it for the past couple weeks. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |