When comparing musca vs bspwm, the Slant community recommends bspwm for most people. In the question“What are the best window managers for Linux?” bspwm is ranked 9th while musca is ranked 10th. The most important reason people chose bspwm is:
It has a low footprint.
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 Very lightweight
It has a low footprint.
Pro Drag&drop / Mouse support for resize/move
You can resize, switch panes, and resize tiles via the mouse.
Pro Very flexible
The keyboard shortcut are handled by another module so it's easy to use other inputs. The configuration is also simple.
Pro Based on binary space partitioning
The windows tiling is handled as the leaves of a full binary tree. This makes it easy to partition as you like.
Pro Open source
Pro Live configuration updates
No need to restart for updating configurations.
Pro Simple, adheres to the UNIX philosophy
Configuration takes much less work than in similar window managers. Hotkey binding is handled by a separate utility, sxhkd.
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 Poorly documented
Compared to something like i3 for example, a user following through i3's documentation is basically guaranteed to get a working desktop suited to their needs. Setting up bspwm is much more of a headache due to developers assuming things are clearer than they are.
Con Lacks transparency support
Like most window managers there is no built in compositing, which means no transparencies.