4 ms·

If you use tiled window managers, and haven't used Xmonad before, I highly recommend it. It's very lightweight, fast, non-buggy, and has a perfect (for me at l

by dylanz 17y ago

If you use tiled window managers, and haven't used Xmonad before, I highly recommend it. It's very lightweight, fast, non-buggy, and has a perfect (for me at least) little feature set.

clicks 17y ago
Many kudos to dons for creating an awesome twm, but I don't think it's a good investment of time for the HN userbase (i.e., the young start-ups who just want to get their thing working and up, whatever be that 'thing'). Xmonad is hard to configure and set up, and hard to work with. I'd rather stick with gnome and have everything Just Work. But, that's just my opinion.
- laddy 17y ago
  They have lots of example configurations you can just copy. I agree that at first it seems like it's going to be a huge hassle to setup but it's really not that bad after you've done it once. Personally I find I get increased productivity out of not constantly fiddling with window placement.
  - clicks 17y ago
    > They have lots of example configurations you can just copy. Sure, you can do that. But then you also have to take the time to understand THAT config (which, isn't even optimized for _YOU_, to begin with) and get USED to that . . . >I agree that at first it seems like it's going to be a huge hassle to setup but it's really not that bad after you've done it once. You also have to invest time in understanding how the config goes, and have a bit of experience with Haskell, and Xmonad itself, to even create a config that really is good for you. Maybe twm is something for me, maybe it isn't. I really don't know - because I only gave it one try, and quickly gave up (because I was having some problems with it, and wasn't willing at that time to set aside time to resolve those problems).
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Just pretend it's not configurable. Now it's like all the other window managers. Also, stop calling tiling window managers "twm". "twm" is a specific window manager that comes with X. (Now there's a hard-to-use window manager.) Finally, what problems were you having? If you just didn't like it, say so.
      - LeChuck 17y ago
        >Just pretend it's not configurable. Now it's like all the other window managers. Currently my xmonad.hs looks like this: import XMonad import XMonad.Config.Gnome main = xmonad gnomeConfig { modMask = mod4Mask } Works perfectly for me, no hassle required.
        jrockway 17y ago
        Very clean config. You should share that with the Wiki if you haven't already. (Yeah, it's simple, but it seems many people don't think a simple configuration can be useful.)
        jrockway 17y ago
        Wow, strange moderation. I bumped you up to +2 earlier in the day (as I appreciate your contribution), but now you are back to 1. I can't believe someone would downmod this comment; you aren't even arguing about anything, you are just sharing your config. Sometimes HN makes me sad.
  - thingie 17y ago
    Even the default config is reasonable and instantly usable, so this complaint really isn't very valid. You really can just install either distribution or cabal package, run it, and get the work done. On the other hand, there are things, that really aren't going to work just out of the box and are hard to configure. Xmonad has quite a different behaviour than Gnome, and sometimes different from what usual desktop app expect. It might be necessary to create a specific settings for a single application, sometimes. But that's what makes it beneficial. If it were just another bad copy of metacity or kwin-like window manager, without adequate support of EWMH and stuff like it, which is the case of many and many X11 WMs, then it would be really worthless.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      I agree here. I set up a new machine the other day and had the default xmonad config for a while. It works fine; it is not significantly different from my super-custom configuration. It was certainly better than a window manager where you have to drag things around to see all your windows.
- kwantam 17y ago
  Many kudos to Linux for creating an awesome DOS 6.2, but I don't think it's a good investment of time for the HN userbase. Linux is hard to configure and set up, and hard to work with. I'd rather stick with Windows and have everything Just Work. Yeah, this comment is kind of like that. Most "modern" windowmanagers are much more about making the desktop pretty than making it usable. Me, I'm happily still running fvwm2 (though I use XMonad every once in a while), and not only does it not waste cycles on things I'm not looking at, it is configurable quickly and easily to an extent that the mainstream Gnome WMs have a hard time touching. XMonad takes that a step further by allowing configuration directly in Haskell (in my perfect world fvwm2 would use guile, but I'm not really complaining). When you want to improve your efficiency at repetitive tasks or basic interactions with your computer, dropping relatively simple "Just Work" solutions in favor of more flexible options makes complete sense. Arguing against a meager time investment to make your UI yours strikes me as rather wrongheaded.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Wait until a tiling window manager shows up in a Steve Jobs keynote. Then everyone will suddenly love the concept.
- jrockway 17y ago
  It's true. Eating is a waste of time, sleeping is a waste of time, interacting with other people is a waste of time, posting to HN is a waste of time, talking about things that are a waste of time is a waste of time, wasting time is a waste of time. Your startup is, statistically, probably a waste of time. But we do it anyway. I have spent a bit of time configuring Xmonad, but the configuration has lasted me for 2+ years and has saved me an infinite amount of frustration. I used Windows for a while at work, and the constant interaction with the mouse makes my hand hurt. With Xmonad, I never have to use the mouse. (I use it for casual web browsing, and whatnot, but I never need it to do real work.) I have also wasted a lot of time configuring Emacs -- my .emacs and support files are more than 2000 lines long. But everything I've spent time on has eliminated small bits of frustration during my work (and play), so even if I can't justify the time savings, I can enjoy life more. Since you eventually die, I think it's worth enjoying life. Xmonad makes my life similarly enjoyable. The only thing that bothers me about Xmonad is that there is no "instance Monad X" in the source code -- Monad is automatically derived on the X type.
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    Check out vimperator (though I guess you're an emacs kind of guy) to remove the mouse from even web browsing.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      I use conkeror (emacs vimperator, basically). The only program I need a mouse for is a PDF reader. I have tried evince and xv, and would gladly accept a replacement :)
      - steveklabnik 17y ago
        Cool, I'll keep that in mind for my emacs-leaning friends. I just accept that there are some things that need a mouse, and use xpdf to read pdfs.
warp 17y ago
Have you used ion or awesome? How is xmonad compared to those?
- jrockway 17y ago
  Awesome got its name from the sound you make when it crashes and takes your entire X session with it. "Awesome."
  - psadauskas 17y ago
    I've been using awesome for about a year now, and never had it crash. Xmonad, however, while never crashing, would cause my Xorg process to eventually use all available RAM after several days of use without restarting.
    - dons 17y ago
      That's extremely unlikely to be xmonad -- it is more symptomatic of writing status to a pipe that is never read from (in an external status bar). Either way, we'd certainly love to know more, since this has never been reported before.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Yeah, I have played with Awesome recently and it is not nearly as flaky anymore. I still enjoy xmonad's test suite, however. Software that ships with a test suite tends to be more reliable than software that doesn't have tests. (Example of software without a test suite: Emacs. No tests anywhere; not for the byte compiler, not for the memory allocator, nowhere. I am amazed it works at all.)
      - uninverted 17y ago
        What? You say that software with tests is more reliable, and then give an example of reliable software without tests.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

by dylanz 17y ago

If you use tiled window managers, and haven't used Xmonad before, I highly recommend it. It's very lightweight, fast, non-buggy, and has a perfect (for me at least) little feature set.

clicks 17y ago

Many kudos to dons for creating an awesome twm, but I don't think it's a good investment of time for the HN userbase (i.e., the young start-ups who just want to get their thing working and up, whatever be that 'thing'). Xmonad is hard to configure and set up, and hard to work with. I'd rather stick with gnome and have everything Just Work. But, that's just my opinion.

laddy 17y ago
They have lots of example configurations you can just copy. I agree that at first it seems like it's going to be a huge hassle to setup but it's really not that bad after you've done it once. Personally I find I get increased productivity out of not constantly fiddling with window placement.
- clicks 17y ago
  > They have lots of example configurations you can just copy. Sure, you can do that. But then you also have to take the time to understand THAT config (which, isn't even optimized for _YOU_, to begin with) and get USED to that . . . >I agree that at first it seems like it's going to be a huge hassle to setup but it's really not that bad after you've done it once. You also have to invest time in understanding how the config goes, and have a bit of experience with Haskell, and Xmonad itself, to even create a config that really is good for you. Maybe twm is something for me, maybe it isn't. I really don't know - because I only gave it one try, and quickly gave up (because I was having some problems with it, and wasn't willing at that time to set aside time to resolve those problems).
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Just pretend it's not configurable. Now it's like all the other window managers. Also, stop calling tiling window managers "twm". "twm" is a specific window manager that comes with X. (Now there's a hard-to-use window manager.) Finally, what problems were you having? If you just didn't like it, say so.
    - LeChuck 17y ago
      >Just pretend it's not configurable. Now it's like all the other window managers. Currently my xmonad.hs looks like this: import XMonad import XMonad.Config.Gnome main = xmonad gnomeConfig { modMask = mod4Mask } Works perfectly for me, no hassle required.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Very clean config. You should share that with the Wiki if you haven't already. (Yeah, it's simple, but it seems many people don't think a simple configuration can be useful.)
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Wow, strange moderation. I bumped you up to +2 earlier in the day (as I appreciate your contribution), but now you are back to 1. I can't believe someone would downmod this comment; you aren't even arguing about anything, you are just sharing your config. Sometimes HN makes me sad.
- thingie 17y ago
  Even the default config is reasonable and instantly usable, so this complaint really isn't very valid. You really can just install either distribution or cabal package, run it, and get the work done. On the other hand, there are things, that really aren't going to work just out of the box and are hard to configure. Xmonad has quite a different behaviour than Gnome, and sometimes different from what usual desktop app expect. It might be necessary to create a specific settings for a single application, sometimes. But that's what makes it beneficial. If it were just another bad copy of metacity or kwin-like window manager, without adequate support of EWMH and stuff like it, which is the case of many and many X11 WMs, then it would be really worthless.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    I agree here. I set up a new machine the other day and had the default xmonad config for a while. It works fine; it is not significantly different from my super-custom configuration. It was certainly better than a window manager where you have to drag things around to see all your windows.
kwantam 17y ago
Many kudos to Linux for creating an awesome DOS 6.2, but I don't think it's a good investment of time for the HN userbase. Linux is hard to configure and set up, and hard to work with. I'd rather stick with Windows and have everything Just Work. Yeah, this comment is kind of like that. Most "modern" windowmanagers are much more about making the desktop pretty than making it usable. Me, I'm happily still running fvwm2 (though I use XMonad every once in a while), and not only does it not waste cycles on things I'm not looking at, it is configurable quickly and easily to an extent that the mainstream Gnome WMs have a hard time touching. XMonad takes that a step further by allowing configuration directly in Haskell (in my perfect world fvwm2 would use guile, but I'm not really complaining). When you want to improve your efficiency at repetitive tasks or basic interactions with your computer, dropping relatively simple "Just Work" solutions in favor of more flexible options makes complete sense. Arguing against a meager time investment to make your UI yours strikes me as rather wrongheaded.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Wait until a tiling window manager shows up in a Steve Jobs keynote. Then everyone will suddenly love the concept.
jrockway 17y ago
It's true. Eating is a waste of time, sleeping is a waste of time, interacting with other people is a waste of time, posting to HN is a waste of time, talking about things that are a waste of time is a waste of time, wasting time is a waste of time. Your startup is, statistically, probably a waste of time. But we do it anyway. I have spent a bit of time configuring Xmonad, but the configuration has lasted me for 2+ years and has saved me an infinite amount of frustration. I used Windows for a while at work, and the constant interaction with the mouse makes my hand hurt. With Xmonad, I never have to use the mouse. (I use it for casual web browsing, and whatnot, but I never need it to do real work.) I have also wasted a lot of time configuring Emacs -- my .emacs and support files are more than 2000 lines long. But everything I've spent time on has eliminated small bits of frustration during my work (and play), so even if I can't justify the time savings, I can enjoy life more. Since you eventually die, I think it's worth enjoying life. Xmonad makes my life similarly enjoyable. The only thing that bothers me about Xmonad is that there is no "instance Monad X" in the source code -- Monad is automatically derived on the X type.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  Check out vimperator (though I guess you're an emacs kind of guy) to remove the mouse from even web browsing.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    I use conkeror (emacs vimperator, basically). The only program I need a mouse for is a PDF reader. I have tried evince and xv, and would gladly accept a replacement :)
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      Cool, I'll keep that in mind for my emacs-leaning friends. I just accept that there are some things that need a mouse, and use xpdf to read pdfs.

warp 17y ago

Have you used ion or awesome? How is xmonad compared to those?

jrockway 17y ago
Awesome got its name from the sound you make when it crashes and takes your entire X session with it. "Awesome."
- psadauskas 17y ago
  I've been using awesome for about a year now, and never had it crash. Xmonad, however, while never crashing, would cause my Xorg process to eventually use all available RAM after several days of use without restarting.
  - dons 17y ago
    That's extremely unlikely to be xmonad -- it is more symptomatic of writing status to a pipe that is never read from (in an external status bar). Either way, we'd certainly love to know more, since this has never been reported before.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Yeah, I have played with Awesome recently and it is not nearly as flaky anymore. I still enjoy xmonad's test suite, however. Software that ships with a test suite tends to be more reliable than software that doesn't have tests. (Example of software without a test suite: Emacs. No tests anywhere; not for the byte compiler, not for the memory allocator, nowhere. I am amazed it works at all.)
    - uninverted 17y ago
      What? You say that software with tests is more reliable, and then give an example of reliable software without tests.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]