Re: [dev] [dwm] Add i3 to differences in

From: Sébastien Poher <>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:13:31 +0100

Le dimanche 15 mars 2015 à 10:55:11, Ivan Tham a écrit :
> I does not like to compile as when I run `make`:
> ```
> dwm build options:
> CFLAGS = -std=c99 -pedantic -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -Os
> -I/usr/X11R6/include -D_BSD_SOURCE -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=2 -DVERSION="6.1"
> LDFLAGS = -s -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11 -lXinerama
> CC = cc
> creating config.h from config.def.h
> CC drw.c
> CC dwm.c
> dwm.c:40:37: fatal error: X11/extensions/Xinerama.h: No such file or directory
> compilation terminated.
> Makefile:18: recipe for target 'dwm.o' failed
> make: *** [dwm.o] Error 1
> ```
> And what does the Xlib header files means in the README?


It means that you have to install the dev library (for example libx11-dev as
named in debian).

As for the difference between i3 and dwm, beside the compilation point, here
are some that I have noticed (I have used both but prefered dwm):

- dwm is faster and simpler to use (less "functionnalities" if you want to
  call it like that);
- they use different paradigm : i3 "creates" workspace and associated tags
  when a client appears or is sent to the considered workspace // dwm has
defined tags that you apply to clients;
- both uses different layout: in i3 windows can be tiled, stacked or tabbed
  (or floating);
  in dwm you have tiling, floating and maximising layout

For the rest, its more or less a question of taste.
Try both and make you're choice.
dwm is not difficult and there is documentation.
Take a look at the i3 config file, the first time, you may find it hard as

I've written tutorials for both (french):

Sébastien Poher
Aidez-nous à défendre la liberté du logiciel:

Received on Sun Mar 15 2015 - 16:13:31 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Mar 15 2015 - 16:24:11 CET