

Awesome WM 3.5 released - matthiasv
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.window-managers.awesome.devel/7772

======
jfb
OT: Wow, is the GMANE interface ever god-awful. I always forget, and then end
up clicking though and regretting it.

------
SageRaven
I'm surprised at the footprint of evilwm (217MB/62MB), as shown in the htop
window here:

<http://awesome.naquadah.org/w/images/6screenshot.jpg>

I had always assumed it was pretty lean. I use evilwm, and on my system it
weighs in at 32MB/2.2MB (virtual/resident).

What does awesome bring to the table that minimal WMs like ratpoison and
evilwm do not?

(Not trying to get into a WM pissing match. I'm genuinely curious.)

~~~
tessellated
Wow, awesome 3.4.13 uses 17000/7904 on my system at the moment.

~~~
dons
FWIW, xmonad at 3480/1916 virt / res...

But I took care to make it lean.

~~~
mercurial
To be fair, xmonad has no taskbar or widgets. I use Taffybar with it and it
adds about 10Mb.

------
dysoco
Now this is why I don't use AwesomeWM, config breaks every-damn-time.

~~~
nemo1618
yeah, it's been a nightmare converting all my old widgets... but in a way, I'm
glad that projects like AwesomeWM have the freedom to break everyone's configs
if it means newer coding standards. The alternative -- retaining support for
all previous versions, at the expense of bloat -- is much less preferable.

~~~
mercurial
It's debatable. In the real world, good APIs which evolve deprecate their
obsolete parts instead of outright removing them. If that's too much bother,
maybe it gets to show that APIs-as-configuration-files are a bad idea,
especially with dynamic languages.

~~~
pyre
Awesome is the only API-as-configuration-file that I know of which
consistently breaks the API between point releases.

------
sandis
I know this isn't necessarily a case, especially considering this is from a
mailing list, but just like with the Enlightenment post a couple of days ago -
how about some screenshots? A human-formatted "What's new" page? Yes, it's
open source, there's no marketing effort, etc., but it would still be cool if
I could see it and learn about it without giving up hours of my time.

~~~
zmanji
The product page has some screenshots[1] as well as the wiki [2].

[1]: <http://awesome.naquadah.org/> [2]:
<http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/Screenshots>

------
w1ntermute
Does anyone know if Awesome has a one-workspace-per-monitor option yet? That's
one of the things that drew me to xmonad instead. When you have multiple
monitors, being able to change the workspace on each one individually is very
useful.

~~~
mediocregopher
As long as I've used awesome (probably 6 months to a year now) I've been able
to change my different monitor's workspaces independently using the default
rc.lua.

Edit: Based on tessellated's response I may not be understanding the question.
By workspace are you referring to the different "desktops" you can reach
through the numbered boxes on the upper left (in the default config)?

~~~
w1ntermute
> By workspace are you referring to the different "desktops" you can reach
> through the numbered boxes on the upper left (in the default config)?

Yes, it looks like awesome's "desktops" are equivalent to xmonad's
"workspaces".

From awesome's home page:

> Real multihead support (XRandR, Xinerama or Zaphod mode) with per screen
> desktops (tags);

It looks like support is there. I might give it a shot again, but
tessellated's comment about the difficulty of configuration isn't encouraging,
particularly when I already have a working xmonad configuration with most of
what I want.

~~~
mediocregopher
In that case I (and tcoppi it seems) have never known it to not work. But I'm
using the nvidia driver/xorg setup scripts, so maybe it does require some
fiddling if you're doing all that by hand.

