When comparing musca vs dwm, the Slant community recommends dwm for most people. In the question“What are the best window managers for Linux?” dwm is ranked 3rd while musca is ranked 17th. The most important reason people chose dwm is:
Dwm is part of the [suckless suite of tools](http://suckless.org/), and encourages users to extend and configure it by modifying the code itself. To this end, dwm is kept under 2000 SLOC, and is an exemplar of clean, readable code (C). This, while giving users all the flexibility they could ask for, also makes dwm as lightweight as possible, and means that users have a full understanding of how it works.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Intuitive interface
All the defaults for musca are quite simple to understand and they work well, making for a very intuitive interface.
Pro Space efficient
Musca has zero panels, icons, tabs, or window decorations that take up precious screen space (though these items can be added on top by installing separate apps to perform these functions).
Pro Grouping system similar to virtual desktops
Windows are placed in named groups which can be used in a similar fashion to virtual desktops. Groups can be added and removed on the fly, and each group has its own frame layout.
Pro Multi-screen support out of the box
Musca has built-in multi-screen support and automatically creates groups for all available screens.
Pro Can handle floating windows
Since not all applications suit tiling, a more traditional stacking window manager mode is also available, allowing windows to float at any screen location and overlap.
Pro Uses the same commands in its commands menu as in its startup file
The commands menu uses the same commands as the startup file, making configuration very simple.
Pro Frames are either bordered or highlighted
Musca window manager has a slim border around its displayed windows, while there is a highlighted frame around the active window.
Pro Encourages user modification
Dwm is part of the suckless suite of tools, and encourages users to extend and configure it by modifying the code itself. To this end, dwm is kept under 2000 SLOC, and is an exemplar of clean, readable code (C). This, while giving users all the flexibility they could ask for, also makes dwm as lightweight as possible, and means that users have a full understanding of how it works.
Pro Simple and small
Dwm is a low-resource window manager that is entirely simplistic in design.
Pro Default keybindings and functionality are very useful and well thought-out
An example of this is the application of alt-tab to switch between two tags.
Pro Application grouping with tags
Dwm's design paradigm is to use tags to group clients (applications) that can then be pulled into a view (workspace); this allows you to view multiple clients at once and to assign or reassign those tags and their related views on the fly.
Contrary to most other window managers, when you view a tag you are not ‘visiting’ a workspace: you are pulling the tagged windows into a single workspace.
Combined with rules in the
config.h, this makes for a flexible and responsive means to manage your workflow.
Pro XRandR/Xinerama support
Dwm has support for XRandR and Xinerama, allowing for multi-monitor support.
Pro Easy to configure
Configuring dwm is straight-forward thanks to its config.h file (though it will have to be rebuilt for the effects to take place).
Pro Useful and informative status bar
The dwm status bar can be set to display all kinds of useful information, such as volume level, wifi signal strength, and battery notification.
Pro Many and unique patches available
Thanks to the small codebase, many users contributed patches to the suckless website. They offer unique functionality, e.g. swallow or fakefullscreen, that is not seen in many other WMs.
Pro Sane defaults
Uses Master&Stack layout by default.
Con Lack of status bar
If the user wishes to use a status bar, they will need to install one separately as there are none in musca by default.
Con By developers, for developers
Basic knowledge of C language, general programming, and compilation are all required.
Con No runtime config file
There is no config file that can be edited after the window manager is compiled: all changes need to be made prior to compiling.