*bspwm

>>52110789
If you don't want to configure much i3 is the best out of the box.

dwm. uses C for configuration

they're all shit tbqhf
write your own wayland wm

>>52110789
openbox, but it's shit to configure for the first day.
after that it constantly grts better with each tweak.

>still no wayland port

>>52110789
>>52111013
been using i3 and can't go back now

>>52111429
there is a port in the works already

>>52110789
fvwm for nostalgia
i3 for actual work. Also i3 is easier to configure than fvwm, so I would say i3.

If you have the time and patience to set it up awesome is a great experience.

>>52111013
I use i3 and would recommend it. However, I think it sucks out of the box. At least the aesthetics do, the keybinds and such are good.

>>52110789
There's no best. It depends on what you are looking for out of one. Some I like:

>Fluxbox - If you are into customization, this should be on your short list of WMs to try.
>CWM - Another great piece of software to come out of OpenBSD. I think most Linux distros don't have it in their repositories though.
>PekWM - Another good one for customizing. Not as well known as Fluxbox though.
>IceWM - this one really is more of a lightweight DE than a simple WM
>Xmonad - very nice, but you need to at least be willing to learn some Haskell to get the most out of it.

I'm torn between Fluxbox and CWM for my favorite.

IceWM would be the best choice if you like lightweight, but aren't exactly sure if you want to fool with completely building your own. IceWM comes with stuff that most people would inevitably want in addition to a WM, like a taskbar and clock. Of all the ones I mentioned, it's the one that looks and behaves the best out of the box. The others take work to even look halfway decent. What I'm getting at is don't be turned off by your initial impression of a WM, because what you start with is literally the bare minimum that any given WM has to offer.

>>52110789
twm