edex-ui

Pros of neofetch

• Lightweight and fast, requiring minimal system resources
• Highly customizable with extensive configuration options
• Supports a wide range of operating systems and distributions

Cons of neofetch

• Limited visual appeal compared to edex-ui's graphical interface
• Lacks real-time system monitoring capabilities
• Primarily focused on system information display rather than interactive features

Code Comparison

neofetch:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Neofetch config file
print_info() {
    info title
    info underline
}

edex-ui:

const pty = require("node-pty");
const os = require("os");

let shell = process.env.SHELL || "bash";
let term = pty.spawn(shell, [], {
    name: "xterm-color",
    cols: 80,
    rows: 30,
    cwd: process.env.HOME,
    env: process.env
});

While neofetch is a simple bash script for displaying system information, edex-ui uses Node.js to create a more complex, interactive terminal environment with advanced features like a virtual keyboard and system monitoring tools. neofetch is ideal for quick system information retrieval, while edex-ui provides a comprehensive, visually appealing interface for system interaction and monitoring.

Pros of WTF

• More lightweight and focused on terminal-based dashboards
• Highly customizable with a wide range of built-in modules
• Easier to set up and configure for specific use cases

Cons of WTF

• Less visually appealing compared to eDEX-UI's sci-fi interface
• Limited to terminal environments, lacking the full GUI experience
• May require more manual configuration for complex setups

Code Comparison

WTF configuration example:

wtf:
  colors:
    border:
      focusable: darkslateblue
      focused: orange
      normal: gray
  grid:
    columns: [40, 40]
    rows: [13, 13, 4]
  refreshInterval: 1

eDEX-UI keyboard configuration:

{
  "keyboard": {
    "layout": "en-US",
    "keyboardMode": "electron",
    "customKeyboardMode": false
  }
}

Summary

WTF is a terminal-based dashboard utility focused on customization and modularity, while eDEX-UI is a more visually striking, sci-fi-inspired system monitor and terminal emulator. WTF offers greater flexibility for specific use cases, but eDEX-UI provides a more immersive and graphically rich experience. The choice between the two depends on whether you prioritize customization and lightweight functionality or a more visually engaging interface.

Pros of gotop

• Lightweight and resource-efficient
• Simple and focused on system monitoring
• Easy to install and use

Cons of gotop

• Limited visual appeal compared to edex-ui's sci-fi interface
• Fewer features and customization options
• Less immersive user experience

Code Comparison

edex-ui (JavaScript):

const si = require("systeminformation");
const os = require("os");

si.cpu().then(data => {
    console.log(data);
});

gotop (Go):

package main

import (
    "github.com/shirou/gopsutil/cpu"
    "fmt"
)

func main() {
    cpuInfo, _ := cpu.Info()
    fmt.Println(cpuInfo)
}

Summary

edex-ui is a feature-rich, visually stunning system monitor with a sci-fi-inspired interface. It offers an immersive experience but may be resource-intensive. gotop, on the other hand, is a lightweight, terminal-based system monitor focused on simplicity and efficiency. It provides essential system information without the bells and whistles of edex-ui.

While edex-ui is built with JavaScript and offers extensive customization, gotop is written in Go and prioritizes performance. edex-ui is ideal for users who want a visually appealing and feature-packed monitoring experience, while gotop is better suited for those who prefer a minimalist, resource-efficient approach to system monitoring.

Pros of btop

• Lightweight and resource-efficient, suitable for systems with limited resources
• Customizable interface with various color schemes and layout options
• Supports a wide range of operating systems, including Linux, macOS, and FreeBSD

Cons of btop

• Less visually striking compared to edex-ui's futuristic interface
• Lacks some advanced features like network monitoring and file system exploration
• Command-line interface may be less intuitive for some users

Code Comparison

edex-ui (JavaScript):

const pty = require("node-pty");
const os = require("os");

var shell = os.platform() === "win32" ? "powershell.exe" : "bash";
var ptyProcess = pty.spawn(shell, [], {
  name: "xterm-color",
  cols: 80,
  rows: 30,
  cwd: process.env.HOME,
  env: process.env
});

btop (C++):

void Input::init() {
    in_file = fopen("/dev/tty", "r");
    if (in_file == NULL) {
        throw std::runtime_error("Failed to open /dev/tty for input");
    }
    tcgetattr(fileno(in_file), &oldt);
    newt = oldt;
    newt.c_lflag &= ~(ICANON | ECHO);
    tcsetattr(fileno(in_file), TCSANOW, &newt);
}

The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches and languages used in each project. edex-ui uses JavaScript with Node.js modules for terminal emulation, while btop employs C++ for low-level system interactions and input handling.

Pros of Glances

• Lightweight and efficient, consuming fewer system resources
• Provides a comprehensive overview of system metrics in a compact display
• Cross-platform compatibility with support for various operating systems

Cons of Glances

• Less visually appealing interface compared to edex-ui's futuristic design
• Limited customization options for the user interface
• Lacks the immersive sci-fi experience offered by edex-ui

Code Comparison

Glances (Python):

def get_stats():
    stats = {}
    stats['cpu'] = psutil.cpu_percent(interval=1)
    stats['memory'] = psutil.virtual_memory().percent
    stats['disk'] = psutil.disk_usage('/').percent
    return stats

edex-ui (JavaScript):

const si = require("systeminformation");

async function getStats() {
    const cpu = await si.currentLoad();
    const mem = await si.mem();
    const disk = await si.fsSize();
    return { cpu: cpu.currentLoad, memory: mem.used / mem.total * 100, disk: disk[0].use };
}

Both projects aim to provide system monitoring capabilities, but they differ in their approach and target audience. Glances focuses on efficiency and comprehensive data display, while edex-ui prioritizes visual aesthetics and an immersive user experience. The code snippets demonstrate the different languages and libraries used by each project to gather system information.

Pros of scrcpy

• Lightweight and focused on Android screen mirroring and control
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Low latency and high performance

Cons of scrcpy

• Limited to Android devices only
• Lacks the comprehensive system monitoring features of edex-ui
• Command-line interface may be less user-friendly for some users

Code Comparison

scrcpy (C):

static void screen_render(struct screen *screen)
{
    SDL_RenderClear(screen->renderer);
    if (screen->texture) {
        SDL_RenderCopy(screen->renderer, screen->texture, NULL, &screen->rect);
    }
    SDL_RenderPresent(screen->renderer);
}

edex-ui (JavaScript):

renderFrame() {
    this.ctx.clearRect(0, 0, this.canvas.width, this.canvas.height);
    this.ctx.drawImage(this.imageData, 0, 0, this.canvas.width, this.canvas.height);
    window.requestAnimationFrame(() => {
        this.renderFrame();
    });
}

Both projects use rendering techniques, but scrcpy focuses on efficient Android screen mirroring, while edex-ui creates a more complex, customizable interface. scrcpy is written in C for performance, whereas edex-ui uses JavaScript for cross-platform compatibility and easier customization.