You might try tabbed mode instead of stacking mode. It’s great, as mentioned in some comment I made, I’m not a tiling guide, but the tabbed mode on sway is great. I would guess it’s available on hyprland since it borrows some concepts from sway. However if you find a lot of trouble on hyprland enabling it (I guess you shouldn’t) you might try sway. Beware you need exceptions because otherwise everything shows up maximized, but that’s not hard byt reading the man pages, compositor documentation, and looking around on the web. BTW, on sway this global config gives tabbed mode on all workspaces: workspace_layout tabbed and of course you can chenge it to stacking, or tiling whenever you want on any workspace…

I’m not a tiling guy, and the tabbed mode on sway seems to me like the best I’ve used. I believe it’s a much better experience than stacking compositors by a lot. Having a tab bar, and everything maximized to it (except what I consider is better off floating) is the best I’ve experienced. Stacking mode is the same just that is uses too much space by stacking the tabs, so I really don’t like stacking mode. So sway tabbed mode, in combination with a tiling concept of a workspace per particular objective (I use 10) and a simple bar (yamber) has no alternative on the stacking spectrum of compositors.

BTW, if going with a stacking compositor, I recommend labwc instead. I found a smoother and way more stable experience than wayfire (some functionality stops working often like sunset functionality, and usually way behind on wlroots support, not a take on wayfire devs, just that I find it more unstable than labwc).

Of course I’m biased towards less eye candy, though I still appreciate the equivalent to basic picom/compton on the Xorg world, which is the norm on any wayland compositor AFAIK.

Tiling widow managers are popular, but they’re definitely a taste.

Oh, I refered to that in your post. To me all WMs/compositors are a matter of taste, including stacking ones (on wayland from the stacking ones I only like labwc though it’s xml config is not what I would prefer). And you already clarified, but it gave me the impression that it was implicit that tiling was a matter of taste, when those WMs/compositors also offer tabbed/stacked mode, which to me it’s not tiling at all, and offers something really appealing not so easily to achieve on any stacking WM/compositor.

Regarding config, well yes, if one is looking for no config at all, and still get the WM/compositor to be useful and also to one’s liking, then that’s hard to find. But the config files once achieving what one likes and is productive with, then one barely looks at it again, and they are usually portable (usually not only across PCs, also across distros).

But I got your point, sort of “plug and play” as they said before, just install it and without any config be productive with it… I can’t imagine that. I heard river is pretty close to dwm, but I can’t tell much about it. The river idea of dynamic tiling, which seems to be the default doesn’t really appeal to me, so I would need to do tabbed mode any ways, which doesn’t seem to be the default, so at least for me it wouldn’t be that configless… But maybe it would be to dynamic tiling people.

well, for me there’s no need for eye candy. I’m happy with sway and its tabbed mode.

BTW, labwc is sort of the openbox for wayland, in case interested

See tabbed mode on sway. Not all tiling compositors are about just tiling, :)

If you’re not into tiling, but still want several of the advantages of sway, it offers a couple of additional modes, stacked and tabbed. I really loved tabbed setting some things to be floating. It’s like it sounds, it offers a horizontal tab with all windows within per workspace, maximized below the tabs… Stacked is similar but it stacks the tabs vertically. If you’d tell me before a tiling compositor has such functionality I wouldn’t have believed it. I like it better than stacking compositors, :)

I guess there was an attempt to move away from the email flow, to allow more people to contribute (I read that was part of the motivation), perhaps that made sourcehut (although it’s in their plan, it hadn’t become their highest priority) not an option, however both can be self hosted (that’s what I would have expected from an organization as the Guix one, so that there’s no dependency on a cloud service, as good as it might be), and both have really good TOS and are non profit. But cloud services are still something its users/clients do not really own. Perhaps as I understood, savannah will still be used as a mirror, but not just temporally, rather for good, so that if something happens on the cloud, there’s plan B available… That’s why for such big and important project I would have preferred a self hosted service. But oh well, I’m not part of the decision, and not an user yet, hopefully to become one later on when getting some minimal understanding of both guile and guix configuration (still guile but I believe simpler), because no matter the distro I always have to write and maintain a few packages myself. Hopefully at some point doesn’t become never having the time to do so, hehe.

So all in all yes, the two best cloud options by far, but I’m surprised a Guix instance was not chosen, not sure if even considered.

It would have been better to self host forgejo, rather than trusting a cloud git service using forgejo. But to be honest, its TOS, as well as the sourcehut’s TOS which I even like it better, sound way better than GH’s…