3 ms·

I'm running i3 + xfce-settings for many years and to me it's a perfect solution, extremely stable. I have no opinion on wayland, but I dread the day when I'll h

by nurbl 3y ago

I'm running i3 + xfce-settings for many years and to me it's a perfect solution, extremely stable. I have no opinion on wayland, but I dread the day when I'll have to move to it, as it will mean switching WM, and I assume lots of details will change. But at least it seems XFCE should still work! I just want my desktop environment to fade into the background and not bother me. I'm used to all the little quirks now :)

loudmax 3y ago
The `sway` window manager is an attempt to clone i3 for Wayland. If you do have to switch, that part at least, shouldn't be too painful.
bravetraveler 3y ago
"Sway" is i3 with Wayland, fear not (so much) You would probably have to change your keybindings a little but otherwise it's very similar... before the Wayland part Switching from i3 to Sway kept 90% of the same config for me, changing only keybinds and output configuration. Keybinds are mostly the same, just some arguments for 'bindsym' don't make sense with Wayland. I did have to override args/env for some things to truly do Wayland, but that's shortening every day It supports X too, but you'll find oddities with copying/pasting between native Wayland and X things
vidarh 3y ago
I feel much the same, though I'm running bspwm, with my own cobbled together scripts rather XFCE. There's zero upside to me in an upgrade, but I worry it eventually will become hard to avoid. I'm increasingly tempted to grab a simple Wayland compositor and "bolt on" a minimalist X implementation directly on it to also allow X connections with just enough of the protocol implemented to allow running some simpler X WMs (but I'd love it if someone beat me to it). For WMs with lots of fancy stuff it'd can take quite a bit of the X API to support, but a simple X WM doesn't typically use that many request types (I just looked at i3's source, and it's X interactions are pretty simple...

by nurbl 3y ago

loudmax 3y ago

The `sway` window manager is an attempt to clone i3 for Wayland. If you do have to switch, that part at least, shouldn't be too painful.

bravetraveler 3y ago

"Sway" is i3 with Wayland, fear not (so much) You would probably have to change your keybindings a little but otherwise it's very similar... before the Wayland part Switching from i3 to Sway kept 90% of the same config for me, changing only keybinds and output configuration. Keybinds are mostly the same, just some arguments for 'bindsym' don't make sense with Wayland. I did have to override args/env for some things to truly do Wayland, but that's shortening every day It supports X too, but you'll find oddities with copying/pasting between native Wayland and X things

vidarh 3y ago

I feel much the same, though I'm running bspwm, with my own cobbled together scripts rather XFCE. There's zero upside to me in an upgrade, but I worry it eventually will become hard to avoid. I'm increasingly tempted to grab a simple Wayland compositor and "bolt on" a minimalist X implementation directly on it to also allow X connections with just enough of the protocol implemented to allow running some simpler X WMs (but I'd love it if someone beat me to it). For WMs with lots of fancy stuff it'd can take quite a bit of the X API to support, but a simple X WM doesn't typically use that many request types (I just looked at i3's source, and it's X interactions are pretty simple...