Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

Exitium · 2008-09-02 17:59:32

In a few days, the new ASUS EEE PC 901 will be released here in Finland and of course I'm going to buy one. But, default Xandros Linux is way too simple and I'm planning to install Arch on EEE.

I want to make Arch very lighweight and that's why I was planning to install Fluxbox or Openbox on it. But, I know nothing about them and that's why I want to ask what are the differences between those two? And which one you recommend?

I have used Gnome about 2 years (with Ubuntu) and I started to use KDE4.1 (with Arch) just a few weeks ago. So basically, I don't even know the main differences between desktop enviroments and window managers.

fflarex · 2008-09-02 19:19:14

Window managers take care of the windows on your screen. That's it. Some of them have fancier features than others (theming, effects, tiling, configurability, etc.) but they mostly do the same things. Desktop environments, on the other hand, include a window manager but also other tools you typically need for a smooth computing experience. GNOME and KDE are both quite extensive DEs, but Xfce4 provides only the basics (panel, file manager, desktop background, terminal, etc.)

If you decide to use a strict window manager, you will need to fill in the gaps with small programs to do all those tasks for you. Fluxbox does include a panel and a tool to change the desktop background, but that's it. Openbox includes nothing, like most other window managers. Configuring them is usually done by editing text files, but some graphical tools exist to do some or most of the work for you. Most window managers are considerably more flexible than their DE counterparts.

Fluxbox has slightly better theming capabilities, although paradoxically I tend to like Openbox themes better. You can include icons in the desktop menu. Fluxbox also has tabbed windows, which is interesting but not my taste. There are already so many different ways to group windows that I just lose track of them. Fluxbox also has a modular and (an arguably) slightly easier syntax style for configuring it.

Openbox has a session manager and is lighter than fluxbox. It has dynamic desktop menus, which you probably won't use at first until you get used to Openbox.

Overall, I like Openbox better, but they're both good and ultimately it comes down to personal taste. Try one and see if you like it. I think there are more Openbox fans on these forums than Fluxbox fans, but Arch users seem to like their weird window managers a lot. Fluxbox is more popular in the wider linux world.

There's lots of information out there on good programs to use with these window managers. Check out the ArchWiki, search the forums and google, and read the information on their websites for ideas.

Last edited by fflarex (2008-09-02 19:26:41)

fflarex · 2008-09-02 19:34:51

Oh, and there are also plenty of screenshots of both of them in the Artwork/Screenshots section of the forums. Feel free to ask someone in there how they got a particular setup.

Exitium · 2008-09-02 19:40:41

Thank you for your reply.

That explained a lot. I need to read wiki and other things to decide which one I will install. But there is no major difference, right?

fflarex · 2008-09-02 19:45:34

No, the differences are quite small.

Exitium · 2008-09-02 19:47:21

Ok, thank you very much.

haxit · 2008-09-02 19:52:41

It seems that some people say fluxbox is a lot easier to configure. But imo openbox is.

tdjy · 2008-09-02 19:56:21

I don't use either on my main pc, but I use both openbox and fluxbox on my older athlon. Fluxbox has a couple quirks that really annoy me to the point where I personally wouldn't consider using it as my main WM if I had to choose.

1. The direction that fluxbox scrolls the workspaces is inverted from the way every other WM/DE does it and from the way that feels natural to me. The reversewheeling init option that's supposed to toggle the direction doesn't seem to work.

2. When you open the desktop menu, you can only close it by clicking the desktop. Say you right click the desktop for the menu, and then you click back to an open web browser.. the menu stays open.

I'd probably say fluxbox is a little easier to start with though.. personally I started off using fluxbox, got irritated by some little quirks, tried out openbox and found it to be almost the same as fluxbox without the annoying quirks.

tdjy · 2008-09-02 20:05:12

haxit wrote:

It seems that some people say fluxbox is a lot easier to configure. But imo openbox is.

Well, I actually tend to agree with this now.. but back when I first started trying the *boxes, fluxbox felt easier which is why I ended up sticking with it first.. maybe simply for the fact that it came with its own panel.

moljac024 · 2008-09-02 21:09:04

I chose openbox since it is fully NetWM compliant while fluxbox isn't. Also openbox seems snappier,lighter and more polished to me. It is also more customizable.

Anyway, these are some of my reasons for preferring openbox but you really should try them both yourself.

NoOneImportant · 2008-09-02 23:50:46

the way I see it, openbox is strictly a window manager; that's it. Panels that have a task list, clock, tray, etc are all separate (it's as if you can make your own desktop environment). You can use it with popular desktop environments too.

fflarex · 2008-09-03 01:27:19

It would seem that Fluxbox just got a new version today...

Last edited by fflarex (2008-09-03 01:29:21)

fivre · 2008-09-03 05:02:42

fflarex wrote:

It would seem that Fluxbox just got a new version today...

More importantly, their site no longer looks... Well, if you've seen the old site, you understand.

tdjy · 2008-09-03 06:33:27

1.1.0 fixes the workspace scrolling at least.

firecat53 · 2008-09-04 04:01:47

A great openbox based desktop environment is LXDE . . . includes a panel, system tray, configuration program, menu, etc. I love it!

Arch Linux

#1 2008-09-02 17:59:32

Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#2 2008-09-02 19:19:14

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#3 2008-09-02 19:34:51

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#4 2008-09-02 19:40:41

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#5 2008-09-02 19:45:34

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#6 2008-09-02 19:47:21

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#7 2008-09-02 19:52:41

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#8 2008-09-02 19:56:21

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#9 2008-09-02 20:05:12

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#10 2008-09-02 21:09:04

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#11 2008-09-02 23:50:46

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#12 2008-09-03 01:27:19

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#13 2008-09-03 05:02:42

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#14 2008-09-03 06:33:27

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

#15 2008-09-04 04:01:47

Re: Openbox and Fluxbox - what's the difference?

Board footer