3 ms·
This came at the right time, I was toying with the idea of switching to FreeBSD from Linux, for my daily driver. Also, I keep on hearing great things about i3.
by asutosh 11y ago
This came at the right time, I was toying with the idea of switching to FreeBSD from Linux, for my daily driver.
Also, I keep on hearing great things about i3. I'm currently using Xmonad and is pretty happy with it, except for the occasional glitches with some applications. The switch to a predictive tiling WM has hugely improved my work flow. should try out i3 sometime, just to see how it fares when compared with Xmonad.
- pmoriarty 11y agoIf your needs are simple, i3 is great. You don't have to know Haskell to configure i3, which uses just a very simple plain text configuration file. My window manager experience: X11 (back in the days before window managers, maybe, or was it Motif back in the day) -> something lost in the dawn of time -> enlightenment -> fvwm -> fluxbox -> openbox -> xmonad -> musl -> i3 (with probably a few more that I don't remember, and a bunch like KDE and Gnome which I've tried but never used daily, and some non-linux ones which I won't mention) i3 has been the simplest and most hassle-free of them all. Then again, my needs have grown simpler over time. 90% of the time I have just one window taking up a full workspace, and occasionally I'll have another tile or floating window. I don't need the super complex or fancy window management features that Xmonad offers. If your needs are simple like me, try i3. :)
- nextos 11y agoI think XMonad is somehow simpler. Core layouts are not dynamic, so if you typically work with just a few windows it's very easy to use. Also, there's a certain appeal from typechecking your config, so if it compiles it should run w/o issues most of the time.