3 ms·

That is also me. I used i3, dwm, awesomewm etc. I spent just too much time maintaning these frankenstein configurations. By setting just a few shortcuts in gnom

by greyw 4y ago

That is also me. I used i3, dwm, awesomewm etc. I spent just too much time maintaning these frankenstein configurations. By setting just a few shortcuts in gnome I get 90% there. My graphical shell is anyway just used for launching emacs, terminals and a browser.

jlarocco 4y ago
> I spent just too much time maintaning these frankenstein configurations. By setting just a few shortcuts in gnome I get 90% there. Curious what you mean by "maintaining these frankenstein configurations", and what you were trying to do. Was the WM under heavy development with user breaking changes or something? I can't argue with your experience, but I've only touched my StumpWM config a handful of times in the last 10 years or so, usually to add a new defcommand or keyboard shortcut.
- d_tr 4y ago
  This is my experience as well. I use i3 and change a couple of lines every now and then. The other components like dbus, portals, pipewire, just work. But I am not doubting the parent's experience either, since people can have wildly varying setups and issues across distros and hardware.
- greyw 4y ago
  Once I had my WM running I had to clobber together lots of different pieces together (with scripts and whatnot) to get the remaining desktop functionality. For example: 1. Laptop screen brightness 2. Wifi setup 3. Application launcher 4. External monitor/projector configurations for presentations etc. Some people might argue this part of the unix principle to have separate tools that do one job well but frankly I don't care about the unix principle as long-time emacs user (the anti-thesis of unix). The end result was a frankenstein thing: random tools glued together to emulate a basic desktop experience.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    Really? Most of that is pretty simple to do in i3 / sway at least. Every one of those things worked out of the box for me the last time I installed (which, admittedly, was via Manjaro, so a fair amount of config came from them). Even prior to that when I rolled an i3 setup by hand, external displays was the only troublesome bit.
    - greyw 4y ago
      It's definitely possible that some distros improved WM based setups. Last time I as down the WM rabbit hole was over 4 years ago. I spent quite a bit of time to get something usable (and it was fun!).
  - servilio 4y ago
    What always did, going through awesomewm, stumpwm and xmonad to now sway, was to used whatever of those services were available from the OS. Some I had to launch by hand, but that was a one time change always (some of them across WMs). Nowadays it is even easier, since most of what I needed to launch manually are now user-level service from systemd. In the end, I am running most of the normal services a GNOME desktop would be running, but without using the GNOME shell, and that has worked very well.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  The time required to set up any environment with robust options for configuring and modifying the way the environment works and multiple different components for any given job is less related to the minimum or reasonable time to achieve a functional environment than it is to how long it takes to explore the many different better ways one could achieve. Shall install vim and be happy or shall we explore the entire environment of plugins and pick the 50 we like best after trying 150 then install Emacs then find our 50 favorite addons there.

by greyw 4y ago

jlarocco 4y ago

> I spent just too much time maintaning these frankenstein configurations. By setting just a few shortcuts in gnome I get 90% there. Curious what you mean by "maintaining these frankenstein configurations", and what you were trying to do. Was the WM under heavy development with user breaking changes or something? I can't argue with your experience, but I've only touched my StumpWM config a handful of times in the last 10 years or so, usually to add a new defcommand or keyboard shortcut.

d_tr 4y ago
This is my experience as well. I use i3 and change a couple of lines every now and then. The other components like dbus, portals, pipewire, just work. But I am not doubting the parent's experience either, since people can have wildly varying setups and issues across distros and hardware.
greyw 4y ago
Once I had my WM running I had to clobber together lots of different pieces together (with scripts and whatnot) to get the remaining desktop functionality. For example: 1. Laptop screen brightness 2. Wifi setup 3. Application launcher 4. External monitor/projector configurations for presentations etc. Some people might argue this part of the unix principle to have separate tools that do one job well but frankly I don't care about the unix principle as long-time emacs user (the anti-thesis of unix). The end result was a frankenstein thing: random tools glued together to emulate a basic desktop experience.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Really? Most of that is pretty simple to do in i3 / sway at least. Every one of those things worked out of the box for me the last time I installed (which, admittedly, was via Manjaro, so a fair amount of config came from them). Even prior to that when I rolled an i3 setup by hand, external displays was the only troublesome bit.
  - greyw 4y ago
    It's definitely possible that some distros improved WM based setups. Last time I as down the WM rabbit hole was over 4 years ago. I spent quite a bit of time to get something usable (and it was fun!).
- servilio 4y ago
  What always did, going through awesomewm, stumpwm and xmonad to now sway, was to used whatever of those services were available from the OS. Some I had to launch by hand, but that was a one time change always (some of them across WMs). Nowadays it is even easier, since most of what I needed to launch manually are now user-level service from systemd. In the end, I am running most of the normal services a GNOME desktop would be running, but without using the GNOME shell, and that has worked very well.
michaelmrose 4y ago
The time required to set up any environment with robust options for configuring and modifying the way the environment works and multiple different components for any given job is less related to the minimum or reasonable time to achieve a functional environment than it is to how long it takes to explore the many different better ways one could achieve. Shall install vim and be happy or shall we explore the entire environment of plugins and pick the 50 we like best after trying 150 then install Emacs then find our 50 favorite addons there.