I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

dtw · 2005-08-11 18:33:40

I've been using fluxbox since I started using linux... that's near 18 months. As some of you know I use the latest development versions and am generally right up to date. Since I have started using it they have added a few good features, a few more context menu options etc but for all that the same bugs that it has always had, still persist.

And, basically, it's crap. I have never felt like the devs gave a flying fudge about the users or their issues. Most bugs were treated with a "I can't reproduce it so you must be retarded" attitude.

So, yeah, I'm sick of. I think I can easily port my simple graphical themes to fvwm and as it is back under development that is where I am headed next. I'm quite intrigued by the Arch WM approach to it, I think it has huge potential to make fvwm really configurable for lazy people

jackmetal · 2005-08-11 19:44:10

dibblethewrecker wrote:

I'm quite intrigued by the Arch WM approach to it, I think it has huge potential to make fvwm really configurable for lazy people

I hear ya! ;-)

flux has been my WM of choice for a while also.

Blackbox is back in development also, have you given it a try recently? I've thought about it, but haven't taken the time to yet.

I have given fvwm a try recently (actually fvwm-themes) and liked it. It seems to support KDE apps better than flux does. I believe the new version of Blackbox is supposed to have better kde support than flux also.

phrakture · 2005-08-11 19:47:49

why not roll your own *box. Run something for decorations, use pypanel or perlpanel or fbpanel, etc and throw "grootmenu" in there - BAM dibblebox

jackmetal · 2005-08-11 19:51:58

phrakture wrote:

why not roll your own *box. Run something for decorations, use pypanel or perlpanel or fbpanel, etc and throw "grootmenu" in there - BAM dibblebox

Or - if I made one: jack-intheBOX

z4ziggy · 2005-08-11 20:33:02

yea, i just recently switched to fvwm, and it just rox. for me, the F stands for fantastic
here's a screenshot of my current fvwm desktop.

Dusty · 2005-08-11 21:07:35

dibblethewrecker wrote:

I've been using fluxbox since I started using linux... that's near 18 months.

Why, you're nothing but a child!!

You've learned bloody fast, let me guess you came to Linux from *BSD (or maybe DOS) and not from Windows?

Dusty

jackmetal · 2005-08-11 21:42:03

z4ziggy wrote:

yea, i just recently switched to fvwm, and it just rox. for me, the F stands for fantastic
here's a screenshot of my current fvwm desktop.

Nice!

Is that the ArchWM package or if not, what version are you running?

dtw · 2005-08-11 21:43:57

No, I am came straight from Windows and never used DOS for more than ping. I started with Vector Linux Christmas 2003, been using Arch just over a year. You, Dusty, helped me choose Arch. I was unsure about using it with dial-up, you helped me sort out my ppp and you also mocked me for thinking that Arch would have a default desktop set up. I remember it like it was yesterday

dtw · 2005-08-11 22:00:24

z4ziggy wrote:

here's a screenshot of my current fvwm desktop.

That's so different! In 18 months i never seen anything like that!

Cam · 2005-08-11 23:19:09

Yeah, it's not bad at all! I'd really like to learn fvwm and switch to it also, I don't mind flux at all but it's not all that configurable without some nasty hacks here there and the other place. The thing turning me off fvwm is that you've basically got to write your own WM in the .fvwm2rc... maybe ArchWM will be nice

z4ziggy · 2005-08-11 23:41:53

tnx
its pure fvwm. i used theme and instructions from here.

neri · 2005-08-18 20:53:10

dibblethewrecker wrote:

And, basically, it's crap. I have never felt like the devs gave a flying fudge about the users or their issues. Most bugs were treated with a "I can't reproduce it so you must be retarded" attitude.

You mean me or the authors? I really couldn't reproduce a couple of things
but always entered fixes when they came my way...

-neri

dtw · 2005-08-18 22:12:37

neri wrote:

dibblethewrecker wrote:
And, basically, it's crap. I have never felt like the devs gave a flying fudge about the users or their issues. Most bugs were treated with a "I can't reproduce it so you must be retarded" attitude.
You mean me or the authors? I really couldn't reproduce a couple of things
but always entered fixes when they came my way...
-neri

No, neri, not you guys! The actual fluxbox devs - unless you are a fluxbox dev

rasat · 2005-08-19 05:59:45

z4ziggy wrote:

yea, i just recently switched to fvwm, and it just rox. for me, the F stands for fantastic
here's a screenshot of my current fvwm desktop.

Thanks!
Not because of the beautiful settings, but to show with FVWM you can configure what you want. This what inspired me in developing ArchWM - it is what you make it.

Week ago when working on ArchWM in Fluxbox, accidentally I clicked one of my files and FVWM's pager and clock appeared. I don't know how it was done and also didn't manage again. But the idea here, if we want something from Fluxbox or other WMs, most likely it can be added. Myself, I am looking forward to have Fluxbox's taskbar as an user package for ArchWM.

phrakture wrote:

...what a window manager should do is manage windows.

Good point for any WM developmet we may do.

wain · 2005-08-19 10:49:25

rasat wrote:

Myself, I am looking forward to have Fluxbox's taskbar as an user package for ArchWM.

It would be great !!!! 8)

dtw · 2005-08-24 08:41:24

This comparison is a bit of a damning indictment too

http://madpenguin.org/images/reviews/vl … umbers.png

wain · 2005-08-24 10:56:35

dibblethewrecker wrote:

This comparison is a bit of a damning indictment too
http://madpenguin.org/images/reviews/vl … umbers.png

I cannot believe what I see :shock:

stonecrest · 2005-08-24 13:32:19

There was a lot of discussion about this and many people feel that the stats are very misleading because what you're seeing for a lot of WM/DE's (like xfce) is that they use logic to determine where the app should be placed on the desktop (i.e. so it doesn't cover up other apps or whatever). I'd rather my WM take a bit longer and place the app somewhere nice such that I don't have to manually move it myself, which would increase the amount of time before i can use the app much more.

And besides, the slowest numbers we're seeing is under a quarter of a second. Who cares?

phrakture · 2005-08-24 15:26:53

wain wrote:

dibblethewrecker wrote:
This comparison is a bit of a damning indictment too
http://madpenguin.org/images/reviews/vl … umbers.png
I cannot believe what I see :shock:

Those numbers don't indicate squat... the time between a map request and the visual mapping? come on....

It's like me providing data like this:

number of doritos consumed while using:
ratpoison ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wmii      |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fluxbox   ||||||||||||||
ion       ||||||
KDE       ||||

and concluding that ratpoison is obviously the best

sweiss · 2005-08-24 16:01:48

Hehe. I still think window managing is overrated. There's no crappy window manager and there's no godlike window manager. Just use the one with the features you use and need.

When I'm working I don't need good window management - I need a good working environment which I can use. So I chose KDE, which does average if not lower than average window managing. I get the tradeoff in better integration.

First think of what do you actually want your desktop environment to be like, then decide which WM/DE does that the best.

magnum_opus · 2005-08-24 16:46:17

thing is the speed that it can map a window is only relevent if that is larger than the time it takes to load the program that the window is for, which is generally never.

rose · 2005-08-24 20:06:25

magnum_opus wrote:

thing is the speed that it can map a window is only relevent if that is larger than the time it takes to load the program that the window is for, which is generally never.

Unless these times add up...

phrakture · 2005-08-24 20:38:36

rose wrote:

magnum_opus wrote:
thing is the speed that it can map a window is only relevent if that is larger than the time it takes to load the program that the window is for, which is generally never.
Unless these times add up...

If the program is made properly, they should overlap. X Requests are asyncronous, so one issues a MapRequest, which takes microseconds, and carries on with the standard init. Assuming the proper visuals are setup when it requests a mapping, it should be able to load before it is done initializing.

iBertus · 2005-08-25 03:28:40

    fluxbox-svn:
             WIN/SEC 50.963866             
       MIN: 0.008473s, MAX: 0.013132, AVG: 0.010944

Machiavelli · 2005-09-03 06:28:18

dibblethewrecker wrote:

This comparison is a bit of a damning indictment too
http://madpenguin.org/images/reviews/vl … umbers.png

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

But I have been bothered by fluxbox lately as well. Have you noticed that opaque window moving thing, how the window can kind of trail after the cursor (in lack of better description)? As a result, I always use transparent window moving.

I've tried to get started with fvwm several times, but I'm too lazy. What is this ArchWM and where can I find it?

Arch Linux

#1 2005-08-11 18:33:40

I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#2 2005-08-11 19:44:10

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#3 2005-08-11 19:47:49

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#4 2005-08-11 19:51:58

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#5 2005-08-11 20:33:02

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#6 2005-08-11 21:07:35

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#7 2005-08-11 21:42:03

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#8 2005-08-11 21:43:57

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#9 2005-08-11 22:00:24

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#10 2005-08-11 23:19:09

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#11 2005-08-11 23:41:53

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#12 2005-08-18 20:53:10

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#13 2005-08-18 22:12:37

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#14 2005-08-19 05:59:45

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#15 2005-08-19 10:49:25

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#16 2005-08-24 08:41:24

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#17 2005-08-24 10:56:35

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#18 2005-08-24 13:32:19

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#19 2005-08-24 15:26:53

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#20 2005-08-24 16:01:48

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#21 2005-08-24 16:46:17

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#22 2005-08-24 20:06:25

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#23 2005-08-24 20:38:36

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#24 2005-08-25 03:28:40

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

#25 2005-09-03 06:28:18

Re: I'm starting to think that fluxbox is a bit crap...

Board footer