[Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

SpeedVin · 2010-07-26 22:41:24

Hello!
I search for a nice floating window manager (something for a change to TWM).
I founded PekWM and I see that it's written in C++, config files are in plain text (just like Fluxbox but without panel).
Is these are the only differences between those WM's (I think no )?
What are pros and cons to use another one?
And can someone can tell me why PekWM was written (I can't found it)?

Last edited by SpeedVin (2010-07-28 11:30:29)

karol · 2010-07-26 22:50:44

http://grzglo.jogger.pl/2008/05/08/poro … x-i-pekwm/

SpeedVin · 2010-07-26 23:00:45

karol wrote:

http://grzglo.jogger.pl/2008/05/08/poro … x-i-pekwm/

Thanks!
I've seen that match but it is really old (from 2007) and I'm sure that some things been changed and some features was added since then

kmason · 2010-07-26 23:13:29

I myself use PekWM, after using OpenBox before it, as it gives me more options. PekWM has screen edge mouse bindings and more freedom in theming for example.

mythus · 2010-07-27 00:40:36

And dn't forget grouping andauto properties!

schen · 2010-07-27 01:05:00

Pekwm has better customization and is more light weight, but has worser compatibility with programs and is a little buggier than openbox.

kmason · 2010-07-27 03:00:35

mythus wrote:

And dn't forget grouping andauto properties!

Yup, I use both of those to add tabbing to programs that don't have it already. Thunar, surf, and urxvt to name a few.

mythus · 2010-07-27 10:38:00

schen wrote:

Pekwm has better customization and is more light weight, but has worser compatibility with programs and is a little buggier than openbox.

What programs is it not really compatible with? I am just curious, as I haven't ever experienced any crashes or problems with pekwm, however I do recall hearing of some people having it not work well for them with pcmanfm and such.

Pekwm may not be as compliant as openbox. Openbox was written with an emphasis on code compliance, while pekwm was written with features and such in mind. However while it does seem true that pekwm gives some users trouble, I never experienced any of them and wonder if it is more or less hardware error (ie not updated to work well with certain video drivers and such) vs actual program compatibility. After all, all pekwm is supposed to do is manage the window that the program appears in, not the program itself.

madalu · 2010-07-27 12:53:20

Just for the record (not that it isn't common knowledge), I might add that openbox has pipe menus. I believe pekwm does not, though there may be add-ons.

EDIT: My mistake - as the subsequent post points out, pekwm has dynamic menus. I happen to be partial to openbox's pipe menus because I've invested so much in them (full-featured mpd client, weather, etc.).

Last edited by madalu (2010-08-03 17:53:02)

kmason · 2010-07-27 13:01:32

madalu wrote:

Just for the record (not that it isn't common knowledge), I might add that openbox has pipe menus. I believe pekwm does not, though there may be add-ons.

Not true. PekWM has them, though they are called Dynamic Menus instead.

SpeedVin · 2010-07-27 13:21:59

Ok right then for me PekWM is better than OpenBox and if we compare it to Fluxbox there are many similar things.
Then why I should use Fluxbox over PekWM (I've seen some matches too and Flux have more features).

mythus · 2010-07-27 17:01:19

When deciding between Fluxbox and pekWM (and indeed really for any WM but more so here) it really boils down to user needs and wants.

1.) Fluxbox seems to be faster and lighter than pekWM so if you are going for a lighter system, fluxbox may be better for you. However pekWM really isn't much heavier at all.

2.) Fluxbox has it's own panel and the "slit". You can hide the panel in fluxbox to use another one but It is, IMO a pain to get programs and system tray apps to use the other panel. pekWM however does not have it's own panel. It does have something similar to the "slit" called the harbor. These things, btw- are primarily for docklets.

3.) IMO, while both support pixmaps, pekWM's looks better. But this is simply a matter of opinion really.

4.) Both have grouping, however it is IMO, that pekWM's grouping works easier and better. IE, in pekWM you can group two windows by using the middle mouse button on the window's title bar and/or some keyboard combo, and drag it to the window you want to group it with. In fluxbox you don't have that middle mouse button option, if I recall correctly, and have to use alt + mouse button to do the same thing.

5.) Both have human readable and editable config files however I always found pekWM's easier to use. There are tools for fluxbox but they may eat your hamsters. pekWM has no such tools, and quite frankly, doesn't need them.

6.) pekWM has auto-properties. Fluxbox does not, as far as I know, however setting up auto properties can be confusing.

7.) Fluxbox has been around longer and is based directly off of Blackbox. Openbox was originally as well but had a complete rewrite with version 3. Fluxbox is basically blackbox with tons of enhancements, fixes, and add ons. Because of it's age and having existed basically before even KDE, fluxbox has a larger community than pekWM, and thus has more themes and documentation than pekWM. pekWM is based, loosely, off of aewm. It is newer and was basically created for the needs of the pekdon project. Having a smaller community, it has less themes and documentation, however much of it's documentation available is, IMO pretty good. Being loosely based off of aewm, but largely it's own code, pekWM could be considered moree clean-coded than fluxbox, however fluxbox itself has the advantegous of time tested code.

8.) Fluxbox is widely available on any linux/unix based os. pekwm may not be.

9.) Fluxbox appears to have more ready to use features, however pekwm IMO has more customizable option. The absence of a panel may be a negative point to some, but to me it means you can use the panel that you desire, instead of what some developer thinks you would like. Add that with dynamic menus, auto properties, and such and I personally think pekWM wins here however many others would likely disagree.

So in summary it is really up to you. pekWM is a love it or hate it kind of thing. Some, like me, love it, and love it's default sloppy focus model and such. Others find it not to their liking. For the record, I like both fluxbox and pekwm, but am more fond of pekWM. I however never could fall in love with open box... It's ok, just not my cup of tea. IMO pekWM is how I wished open box would be, with window grouping and pixmap support and the like. Fluxbox on the other hand really does have a different feel to it, despite being so similar.

Therefore, it may serve you best to try on both pair of shoes and see which on fits best.

SpeedVin · 2010-07-28 11:13:18

mythus wrote:

When deciding between Fluxbox and pekWM (and indeed really for any WM but more so here) it really boils down to user needs and wants.
1.) Fluxbox seems to be faster and lighter than pekWM so if you are going for a lighter system, fluxbox may be better for you. However pekWM really isn't much heavier at all.
2.) Fluxbox has it's own panel and the "slit". You can hide the panel in fluxbox to use another one but It is, IMO a pain to get programs and system tray apps to use the other panel. pekWM however does not have it's own panel. It does have something similar to the "slit" called the harbor. These things, btw- are primarily for docklets.
3.) IMO, while both support pixmaps, pekWM's looks better. But this is simply a matter of opinion really.
4.) Both have grouping, however it is IMO, that pekWM's grouping works easier and better. IE, in pekWM you can group two windows by using the middle mouse button on the window's title bar and/or some keyboard combo, and drag it to the window you want to group it with. In fluxbox you don't have that middle mouse button option, if I recall correctly, and have to use alt + mouse button to do the same thing.
5.) Both have human readable and editable config files however I always found pekWM's easier to use. There are tools for fluxbox but they may eat your hamsters. pekWM has no such tools, and quite frankly, doesn't need them.
6.) pekWM has auto-properties. Fluxbox does not, as far as I know, however setting up auto properties can be confusing.
7.) Fluxbox has been around longer and is based directly off of Blackbox. Openbox was originally as well but had a complete rewrite with version 3. Fluxbox is basically blackbox with tons of enhancements, fixes, and add ons. Because of it's age and having existed basically before even KDE, fluxbox has a larger community than pekWM, and thus has more themes and documentation than pekWM. pekWM is based, loosely, off of aewm. It is newer and was basically created for the needs of the pekdon project. Having a smaller community, it has less themes and documentation, however much of it's documentation available is, IMO pretty good. Being loosely based off of aewm, but largely it's own code, pekWM could be considered moree clean-coded than fluxbox, however fluxbox itself has the advantegous of time tested code.
8.) Fluxbox is widely available on any linux/unix based os. pekwm may not be.
9.) Fluxbox appears to have more ready to use features, however pekwm IMO has more customizable option. The absence of a panel may be a negative point to some, but to me it means you can use the panel that you desire, instead of what some developer thinks you would like. Add that with dynamic menus, auto properties, and such and I personally think pekWM wins here however many others would likely disagree.
So in summary it is really up to you. pekWM is a love it or hate it kind of thing. Some, like me, love it, and love it's default sloppy focus model and such. Others find it not to their liking. For the record, I like both fluxbox and pekwm, but am more fond of pekWM. I however never could fall in love with open box... It's ok, just not my cup of tea. IMO pekWM is how I wished open box would be, with window grouping and pixmap support and the like. Fluxbox on the other hand really does have a different feel to it, despite being so similar.
Therefore, it may serve you best to try on both pair of shoes and see which on fits best.

WOW!
That is what I was looking for!
Thanks!
But panel in fluxbox can be switched off and you can use another (preferred one)
Thanks again!

valium97582 · 2010-07-28 13:47:54

May I suggest you E17? Anyway I still prefer fluxbox (my first standalone WM )

SpeedVin · 2010-07-28 14:09:29

valium97582 wrote:

May I suggest you E17? Anyway I still prefer fluxbox (my first standalone WM )

E17 is nice, thanks but it's a desktop shell now

mythus · 2010-07-28 16:27:57

Not exactly, lol. e17 isn't a complete desktop shell, but it is more than a simple window manager. It is true that it is being desinged as a full fledge desktop shell, but all of the pieces for such are not there yet. Therefore I would classify it as a enhanced window manager .

With e17, you could have a very simple environment. You can use your own panel if you want, and let e1y only control the window decoration and such as a WM would. You can completely disable the alpha-build file manager and use your own. It is, perhaps, one of the most flexible environments out there, falling just short of FVWM.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-07-26 22:41:24

[Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#2 2010-07-26 22:50:44

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#3 2010-07-26 23:00:45

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#4 2010-07-26 23:13:29

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#5 2010-07-27 00:40:36

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#6 2010-07-27 01:05:00

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#7 2010-07-27 03:00:35

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#8 2010-07-27 10:38:00

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#9 2010-07-27 12:53:20

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#10 2010-07-27 13:01:32

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#11 2010-07-27 13:21:59

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#12 2010-07-27 17:01:19

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#13 2010-07-28 11:13:18

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#14 2010-07-28 13:47:54

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#15 2010-07-28 14:09:29

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

#16 2010-07-28 16:27:57

Re: [Solved] PekWM and OpenBox or Fluxbox the diffrences ;)

Board footer