Since i3 is not programmable there will naturally be things you can't do with i3. Out of the box I'd say that i3 is prettier than awesome.
Awesome and i3 both have plain text configs, remember that lua code is written in plain text :). I don't know of the i3 community, but I know that the awesome community is really nice. The largest difference, which probably is the difference which should make you choose between the window managers is that one has manual tiling and the other dynamic tiling. Awesome has dynamic tiling. This means that you set a layout, and the windows are tiled according to the layout. For example there's a layout that places one window to the left filling up the entire left of the screen, and the rest of the windows are stacked to the right. i3 has manual tiling, this means that you simply move the windows around in a grid you change to your liking. Manual tiling sounds nice, but personally there's always a layout which places the windows the way I want, and when you use a layout, it's faster than manual placement. Note that one of the layout rules in awesome is floating which makes every single window a floating window, which many find useful. This is not possible in i3. ons. 9. sep. 2015 kl. 04.50 skrev Ray Andrews <[email protected]>: > On 09/08/2015 02:02 PM, Paweł Rumian wrote: > > If awesome won't appeal to you, you can give i3 a try - I remember > > that I liked it really a lot - in some aspects more than awesome. > Paweł > > That's the other one I'm thinking of trying. From what I hear, it's > 'easier' but less powerful. How would you rate them side by side? They > say the docs are better and it's plain text config. But they will not > have such a helpful community ;-) > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected]. >
