Stacking vs Tiling WMs!

Stacking or Tiling?

  • Total voters
    20
Why has it to be "versus"?
To me it's not a competetion, but kind of personal working style.
Why do you want a vote list for this?
If I assume it's about you cannot decide for yourself what to use, then this list won't help you neither.
Most users use stacking WM. But if your real working style was tiling (which you may don't know yet, if you never tried), then you will make the wrong choice by such a poll.
My advice:
FreeBSD is also about to set up your machine to your needs, which requires you know your needs, found out your personal style.
So, just try some out for yourself until you found what suits you best.
 
It depends on what I need. For a simple desktop, where I want the same output on both screens, I'll use fswm for full screen. For a desktop, which I need to go back and forth, I'll use mcwm, so I use hotkeys to make the two monitors have different outputs, the same output, or both off. I can navigate better in the fullscreen wm, but I can't have applications side by side on two monitors. Maybe add, other, or full screen. Then, I'd vote for two.

I would use dynamic, but I never got into them before. Maybe it's what I need. I'm doing more of with keys than a mouse or keypad than before.

If I could, I'd go with fullscreen, which can switch between multihead and duplicate output on both monitors, without switching sessions. I don't have that right now.
 
In ancient days, I saw Windoze1.x that was tiling WM, and after years, I've purchased Windoze 3.x on DOS, which was stacking WM.
Maybe, if I have 50 inch or larger 8k (or far more larger) screen, possibly I prefer tiling WM. But for upto 15.6inch notebook, tiling WM is not preferrable for me.

Note that I call Windoze for DOS-based ones (pre-2000 on mainline, which were unstable garbages) and Windows for ones developed by VMS (-> WNT) team, which arereally an OS (NT and post-2000). They are completely different products except for their namings.
 
dwm has a patch that can let you move and resize windows if you use floating mode. (I know awesome also does floating mode, or did when I last checked a few years ago). Generally, on a larger screen I prefer tiling, dwm (or dwl in Wayland) and on laptops, openbox (or labwc). But as many people have already said, it depends upon what I'm doing on a particular machine. I have a stupid script, that I can use to change between them. Also, and this is serious though it sounds like a joke, said script can change to xfce4 in case I dropped dead at the keyboard (we're not young) and my wife, who is non-technical, needed to access my files. (She has a sheet with detailed, beginnner friendly instructions, of how to kill X and then run the script to run xfce4 and what files she'd probably need).
 
Sway is the best, but unfortunately not everything is smooth under Wayland. But I think on the 15th version there will be only Sway. XFCE4 now (last days)...
 
Maturin said:
Why has it to be "versus"?
To me it's not a competetion, but kind of personal working style.
Why do you want a vote list for this?
If I assume it's about you cannot decide for yourself what to use, then this list won't help you neither.
Most users use stacking WM. But if your real working style was tiling (which you may don't know yet, if you never tried), then you will make the wrong choice by such a poll.
My advice:
FreeBSD is also about to set up your machine to your needs, which requires you know your needs, found out your personal style.
So, just try some out for yourself until you found what suits you best.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to see what the community, as a whole, perferred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top