FVWM on Arch

Inxsible · 2008-07-03 04:46:51

I wanted to know how good or bad FVWM or FVWM-crystal is on Arch in terms of support and or updates.

I searched thru pacman for both and they are in the unstable repository. Does this mean that I should expect a lot of breakage?

Are there any particular WMs that are most preferred by Arch users?

I like to try out different WMs and so far I have dabbled in Fluxbox, IceWM, PekWM, JWM, E17, Xfce, Gnome (although the last 2 are DEs)

I did try Openbox as well, but to be honest, didnt give it a fair trial. I moved to Fluxbox within a few days. So I might try Openbox again

Last edited by Inxsible (2008-07-05 19:12:42)

pressh · 2008-07-03 05:05:19

fvwm is in unstable because upstream still marks the 2.5 series as unstable. They run perfectly stable though so don't be affraid because it is in the unstable repo.

Just use whatever wm you like. You can take a look in the screenshot section on this forum to see what some of us are using.

moljac024 · 2008-07-03 08:43:23

Tiling WMs seem to be pretty popular around here

And if I were you, I would give Openbox another shot. Much better than fluxbox IMHO.

william7 · 2008-07-03 14:20:03

I have openbox with xfce4-panel

openbox is light anf xfce4-panel give you volume-mixer, tray, and mount plugin.

Misfit138 · 2008-07-03 15:47:31

Another OpenBox user here.
I like it a lot, and I've spent quite some time with it. I may be moving to something different soon, not sure what to try next.
I went from KDE>Xfce>Openbox and many others between, like Gnome, Awesome and Fluxbox. I am thinking I may be leaning toward Fluxbox again, since I don't necessarily need the minimalism of Openbox, and Fluxbox is more expedient to setup.
LXDE looks cool, may try it.
..or maybe I'll just leave everything alone.

Inxsible · 2008-07-03 16:18:42

I will be installing multiple WMs on my Arch install and probably try them all out. Currently installing Openbox, FVWM-Crystal. Maybe I will try one of those tiling WMs - but I don't really have the need for tiling. It isnt too difficult for me to Alt + Tab especially when I start almost all my apps in the terminal with screen and then detach them.

I use Fluxbox as well and I think I know my way around it, to set it up quickly. This machine also has a Xfce setup, which I plan to remove as soon as I am more comfortable with Arch and the WM i choose on it. One of the reasons I am not choosing Fluxbox on Arch, is because I already have it on Debian Lenny core and I wanted to try something new.

I have tried LXDE and I found it lacking in lot of features - although its still being developed and the developers say they will be adding new features. It also looks a lot like Windows, which kinda puts me off.

Maybe that's just a default and you can change it, but I didn't play around with it too much. Also I think LXDE attempts to be a lightweight DE and not simply a WM.

Last edited by Inxsible (2008-07-03 16:23:52)

moljac024 · 2008-07-03 17:14:41

LXDE is nothing more than a customized openbox setup. It's openbox + pcmanfm + lxpanel + someothertools (But they develop pcmanfm and lxpanel)

For some reason I just can't bring myself to liking XFCE no matter how hard I try....

Inxsible · 2008-07-03 18:50:57

moljac024 wrote:

LXDE is nothing more than a customized openbox setup. It's openbox + pcmanfm + lxpanel + someothertools (But they develop pcmanfm and lxpanel)
For some reason I just can't bring myself to liking XFCE no matter how hard I try....

When I installed LXDE over Debian some time back, it asked me to install pcmanfm separately, as in it wasn't packaged togehther, even though it was the "official" file manager which was strange to me.

If they don't want to become a DE, then why suggest a file manager? Simply be like the WMs where all they promise is a window manager and you can install whatever else you want.

Xfce is good for someone who hates the bloat of Gnome (me ..me...) but would also like to set something up quickly without having too many hassles. For eg. I gave my parents Xfce over Debian. There is no way they would be willing to edit text files even for Fluxbox. It gives me less headache to go over to their place and having to maintain it all the time or remote logging in. Also, they do not need all the crap that comes with Gnome. So its a win win !

moljac024 · 2008-07-03 21:47:02

First of all, LXDE is a Desktop Environment because it provides a session manager, a window manager, a file manager, a panel, a text editor etc. A DE is really a collection of programs.

All I pointed out was that they don't develop the whole thing themselves (Openbox or leafpad for example) and you can run lxpanel with openbox for more or less the same effect. They just configure it all nice and tight. It's not as complex as GNOME or KDE though. (which is why it is much faster )

And the reason I can't get around to using xfce is because I find it too limiting and annoying. It doesn't feel polished to me.

Last edited by moljac024 (2008-07-03 22:04:31)

Inxsible · 2008-07-05 19:23:33

moljac024 wrote:

First of all, LXDE is a Desktop Environment because it provides a session manager, a window manager, a file manager, a panel, a text editor etc. A DE is really a collection of programs.
All I pointed out was that they don't develop the whole thing themselves (Openbox or leafpad for example) and you can run lxpanel with openbox for more or less the same effect. They just configure it all nice and tight. It's not as complex as GNOME or KDE though. (which is why it is much faster )
And the reason I can't get around to using xfce is because I find it too limiting and annoying. It doesn't feel polished to me.

Can you tell me what you find limiting in Xfce? I am not trying to push Xfce to you or anything, I'd just like to know what you can do in some other wm and not in Xfce. As for the polished feel, that I guess is hard to change and depends from person to person.

I guess, since LXDE uses Openbox, we can customize it. I should probably try that out with my parents. The default lookis pretty much standard and they should not feel out of place from XP.

meandean · 2008-07-05 19:40:07

I do like lxappearance utility but I prefer fbpanel to the lx counterpart, cant remember the actual reason though. Maybe the memory usage was higher then fbpanel or some wonky behavior. Cant remember.

XFCE... I find it strange that the xfce panel does not have a utility to easily configure/tweak it. Also the icons never seem to fit the panel, they always seem smaller than they should be so I end up with a huge panel simply to have decent size icons. That being said, I love the iconbox instead of having a windows task list. Also the xfce menu applet seems to use more resources than I would expect it to...

moljac024 · 2008-07-06 07:42:55

Trying to configure XFCE I felt as If I was fighting it to do what I want. It's just cumbersome...

Arch Linux

#1 2008-07-03 04:46:51

FVWM on Arch

#2 2008-07-03 05:05:19

Re: FVWM on Arch

#3 2008-07-03 08:43:23

Re: FVWM on Arch

#4 2008-07-03 14:20:03

Re: FVWM on Arch

#5 2008-07-03 15:47:31

Re: FVWM on Arch

#6 2008-07-03 16:18:42

Re: FVWM on Arch

#7 2008-07-03 17:14:41

Re: FVWM on Arch

#8 2008-07-03 18:50:57

Re: FVWM on Arch

#9 2008-07-03 21:47:02

Re: FVWM on Arch

#10 2008-07-05 19:23:33

Re: FVWM on Arch

#11 2008-07-05 19:40:07

Re: FVWM on Arch

#12 2008-07-06 07:42:55

Re: FVWM on Arch

Board footer