Pros of Sway

• Native Wayland support, offering better performance and modern graphics capabilities
• Improved multi-monitor handling and HiDPI support
• Compatibility with most i3 configuration files, easing transition

Cons of Sway

• Limited support for X11 applications, potentially causing compatibility issues
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party tools compared to i3
• Some i3 features may not be fully implemented or work differently

Code Comparison

i3 configuration:

bar {
    status_command i3status
    position top
}

Sway configuration:

bar {
    swaybar_command swaybar
    position top
}

Both i3 and Sway use similar configuration syntax, but Sway introduces some Wayland-specific elements. In this example, the status bar configuration differs slightly, with Sway using swaybar_command instead of status_command.

While i3 is a mature X11 window manager with a large user base and extensive documentation, Sway offers a modern Wayland-based alternative with improved graphics capabilities. The choice between the two often depends on the user's preference for X11 or Wayland, as well as their specific hardware and software requirements.

Pros of bspwm

• More flexible tiling algorithm with binary space partitioning
• Lighter weight and uses fewer system resources
• Highly customizable through external scripts and programs

Cons of bspwm

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Less built-in functionality, requiring additional tools for some features
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to i3

Code Comparison

bspwm configuration snippet:

bspc config border_width        2
bspc config window_gap          12
bspc config split_ratio         0.52
bspc config borderless_monocle  true
bspc config gapless_monocle     true

i3 configuration snippet:

# i3 config file (v4)
font pango:monospace 8
new_window pixel 1
gaps inner 10
gaps outer 5

Both i3 and bspwm are popular tiling window managers for Linux. i3 is known for its ease of use and extensive documentation, while bspwm offers more advanced tiling capabilities and customization options. i3 has a larger user base and more built-in features, whereas bspwm relies on external tools for some functionality. The choice between them often comes down to personal preference and specific needs.

Pros of herbstluftwm

• More flexible and customizable tiling layouts
• Scriptable in any language, not limited to a specific configuration format
• Dynamic tag system for workspaces, allowing for easier organization

Cons of herbstluftwm

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique approach to window management
• Smaller community and fewer readily available resources compared to i3
• Less out-of-the-box functionality, requiring more initial setup

Code Comparison

herbstluftwm configuration example:

hc keybind $Mod-Shift-q quit
hc keybind $Mod-Shift-r reload
hc keybind $Mod-w close
hc keybind $Mod-Return spawn ${TERMINAL:-xterm}

i3 configuration example:

bindsym $mod+Shift+q exec "i3-nagbar -t warning -m 'Exit i3?' -B 'Yes' 'i3-msg exit'"
bindsym $mod+Shift+r restart
bindsym $mod+Shift+c reload
bindsym $mod+Return exec i3-sensible-terminal

Both window managers use configuration files to define keybindings and behaviors. herbstluftwm uses a shell script format, allowing for more complex logic and scripting, while i3 uses a simpler, more straightforward configuration syntax. This difference reflects herbstluftwm's focus on flexibility and customization, compared to i3's emphasis on ease of use and quick setup.

Pros of awesome

• More customizable and extensible with Lua scripting
• Built-in widgets and layouts for enhanced functionality
• Dynamic tiling with floating window support

Cons of awesome

• Steeper learning curve due to Lua configuration
• Less intuitive for beginners compared to i3's simpler approach
• Configuration can be more complex and verbose

Code Comparison

awesome (rc.lua):

awful.layout.layouts = {
    awful.layout.suit.floating,
    awful.layout.suit.tile,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.left,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.bottom,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.top,
}

i3 (config):

# Default layout mode
workspace_layout tabbed

# Switch to workspace 1
bindsym $mod+1 workspace 1

awesome offers more built-in layouts and allows for custom layouts through Lua scripting. i3's configuration is simpler and more straightforward, focusing on key bindings and basic workspace management.

awesome provides a more feature-rich environment out of the box, with widgets and dynamic tiling. i3 offers a minimalist approach, prioritizing simplicity and ease of use for users who prefer a straightforward tiling window manager.

Both window managers are highly regarded in the Linux community, with i3 being favored for its simplicity and awesome for its extensibility. The choice between them often comes down to personal preference and specific needs.

Pros of Qtile

• Written in Python, making it highly customizable and easier to extend
• Built-in widget system for creating status bars and panels
• Supports both floating and tiling window management

Cons of Qtile

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to i3
• Less stable and mature than i3
• May have higher resource usage due to being Python-based

Code Comparison

i3 configuration (i3config):

bindsym $mod+Return exec i3-sensible-terminal
bindsym $mod+Shift+q kill
bindsym $mod+d exec dmenu_run

Qtile configuration (config.py):

from libqtile.config import Key
from libqtile.lazy import lazy

keys = [
    Key(["mod4"], "Return", lazy.spawn("alacritty")),
    Key(["mod4", "shift"], "q", lazy.window.kill()),
    Key(["mod4"], "d", lazy.spawncmd()),
]

Both i3 and Qtile are popular tiling window managers, but they differ in their implementation and target audience. i3 is written in C and focuses on simplicity and efficiency, while Qtile leverages Python for greater flexibility and customization. i3 has a larger user base and more extensive documentation, making it easier for beginners to get started. Qtile, on the other hand, appeals to users who prefer Python and want more built-in features like a widget system for creating custom panels.

Pros of xmonad

• Highly customizable through Haskell configuration
• Efficient use of screen space with automatic tiling
• Extensible with a rich ecosystem of third-party extensions

Cons of xmonad

• Steeper learning curve, especially for those unfamiliar with Haskell
• Less user-friendly for beginners compared to i3's simpler configuration
• Smaller community and fewer readily available resources

Code Comparison

xmonad configuration example:

main = xmonad $ def
    { modMask = mod4Mask
    , layoutHook = Tall 1 (3/100) (1/2) ||| Full
    , terminal = "urxvt"
    }

i3 configuration example:

set $mod Mod4
bindsym $mod+Return exec urxvt
bindsym $mod+Shift+q kill
bindsym $mod+d exec dmenu_run

xmonad leverages Haskell for configuration, offering powerful customization but requiring more programming knowledge. i3 uses a simpler, more accessible configuration syntax that's easier for beginners to understand and modify. Both window managers provide efficient tiling capabilities, but xmonad's approach is more dynamic and adaptable, while i3 offers a more structured and predictable layout system.