Pros of polybar

• More mature project with a larger community and extensive documentation
• Highly customizable with a wide range of built-in modules
• Supports X11 window managers, making it compatible with more desktop environments

Cons of polybar

• Limited Wayland support, primarily focused on X11
• Configuration can be more complex and verbose
• Slower development cycle compared to Waybar

Code Comparison

Polybar configuration example:

[bar/mybar]
modules-left = i3
modules-center = date
modules-right = cpu memory

Waybar configuration example:

{
    "modules-left": ["sway/workspaces"],
    "modules-center": ["clock"],
    "modules-right": ["cpu", "memory"]
}

Both Polybar and Waybar are popular status bar projects for Linux desktop environments. Polybar is a more established project with broader compatibility, especially for X11-based systems. It offers extensive customization options and a wide range of built-in modules. However, its configuration can be more complex, and it has limited Wayland support.

Waybar, on the other hand, is designed specifically for Wayland compositors, offering better integration with Wayland-based environments. It features a more straightforward JSON-based configuration and faster development cycle. However, it has a smaller community and fewer built-in modules compared to Polybar.

The choice between the two largely depends on the user's desktop environment, desired features, and willingness to invest time in configuration.

Pros of eww

• More flexible and customizable, allowing for complex widgets and layouts
• Uses Yuck, a custom DSL, for easier configuration and styling
• Supports multiple backends (X11, Wayland, and macOS)

Cons of eww

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique configuration language
• Less mature project with potentially fewer community resources
• May require more system resources due to its Rust-based implementation

Code Comparison

Waybar configuration (JSON):

{
    "modules-left": ["sway/workspaces", "sway/mode"],
    "modules-center": ["clock"],
    "modules-right": ["battery", "network"]
}

eww configuration (Yuck):

(defwindow bar
  :monitor 0
  :geometry (geometry :x "0%"
                      :y "0%"
                      :width "100%"
                      :height "30px")
  :stacking "fg"
  (bar))

Both Waybar and eww are popular status bar tools for Linux desktop environments, particularly for tiling window managers. Waybar is specifically designed for Wayland compositors, while eww offers broader compatibility. Waybar provides a more straightforward setup with its JSON configuration, making it easier for beginners. eww, on the other hand, offers greater customization options and flexibility, but requires learning its custom Yuck language. The choice between the two depends on the user's needs for simplicity versus advanced customization.

Pros of Rofi

• More versatile: Can be used as an application launcher, window switcher, and general-purpose menu
• Highly customizable with themes and scripting support
• Lightweight and fast, with minimal dependencies

Cons of Rofi

• Primarily designed for X11, with limited Wayland support
• Steeper learning curve for advanced customization
• Less integrated with specific desktop environments or window managers

Code Comparison

Rofi configuration example:

rofi.theme: /path/to/theme.rasi
rofi.modi: window,run,ssh
rofi.width: 50
rofi.lines: 15
rofi.columns: 1

Waybar configuration example:

{
    "modules-left": ["sway/workspaces", "sway/mode"],
    "modules-center": ["clock"],
    "modules-right": ["pulseaudio", "network", "battery"],
    "clock": {
        "format": "{:%Y-%m-%d %H:%M}"
    }
}

While both projects serve different purposes, this comparison highlights the key differences between Rofi, a versatile application launcher and menu system, and Waybar, a customizable status bar for Wayland compositors. Rofi offers more flexibility in terms of functionality, while Waybar is specifically designed for integration with Wayland-based environments.

Pros of Conky

• Highly customizable with Lua scripting support
• Works on a wide range of desktop environments and window managers
• Extensive documentation and large user community

Cons of Conky

• Steeper learning curve for advanced configurations
• Less modern appearance compared to Waybar
• Can be resource-intensive with complex setups

Code Comparison

Conky configuration example:

conky.config = {
    alignment = 'top_right',
    background = false,
    border_width = 1,
    cpu_avg_samples = 2,
    default_color = 'white',
    double_buffer = true,
}

Waybar configuration example:

{
    "layer": "top",
    "position": "top",
    "height": 30,
    "modules-left": ["sway/workspaces", "sway/mode"],
    "modules-center": ["sway/window"],
    "modules-right": ["pulseaudio", "network", "cpu", "memory", "clock"]
}

Conky offers more flexibility in terms of scripting and customization, making it suitable for users who want complete control over their system monitor's appearance and functionality. However, this comes at the cost of a steeper learning curve and potentially higher resource usage.

Waybar, on the other hand, provides a more modern and streamlined approach, with easier configuration using JSON. It's specifically designed for Wayland compositors, offering better integration with environments like Sway.

Pros of polybar-themes

• Extensive collection of pre-designed themes
• Easy customization and configuration options
• Supports various Linux distributions and window managers

Cons of polybar-themes

• Limited to Polybar, not compatible with other status bars
• May require more manual setup and configuration
• Some themes might be resource-intensive

Code Comparison

Waybar configuration (JSON):

{
    "modules-left": ["sway/workspaces", "sway/mode"],
    "modules-center": ["clock"],
    "modules-right": ["network", "battery"],
    "clock": {
        "format": "{:%Y-%m-%d %H:%M}"
    }
}

polybar-themes configuration (INI):

[bar/example]
modules-left = i3
modules-center = date
modules-right = wlan battery

[module/date]
type = internal/date
date = %Y-%m-%d %H:%M

Waybar focuses on a JSON-based configuration, while polybar-themes uses an INI-style format. Waybar's configuration is more compact and structured, while polybar-themes offers more flexibility in module placement and customization.

Waybar is designed specifically for Wayland compositors, providing native support for Sway and other Wayland-based environments. polybar-themes, being based on Polybar, offers broader compatibility with various X11 window managers and desktop environments.

Both projects aim to enhance the user's status bar experience, but they cater to different use cases and preferences. Waybar provides a modern, Wayland-focused solution, while polybar-themes offers extensive customization options for traditional X11 environments.