Preferable window manager for arch?

techprophet · 2008-08-21 19:10:30

fvwm or e17

e17:
pacman -S e-svn entrance-svn
fvwm:
pacman -S fvwm-devel

[EDIT] Whoops wrong fvwm package. And apparently e17 got removed from community. I can send you a copy of my .fvwm though if you like.

Last edited by techprophet (2008-08-23 14:19:13)

scrawler · 2008-08-21 19:43:28

Black, Flux, Open, doesn't matter. Can't stand any of the boxes. I like xfce4, and if I have to go light, icewm with an auto-hiding double width taskbar, about 10 or so virtual desktops, and two rox panels.

If I could install rox on a loaf of bread I'd sell my computer so I could work and maybe make a nice sandwich at the same time.

I plan to really like e17 someday but not quite yet.

koch · 2008-08-21 23:16:12

dhave wrote:

As a promiscuous DE/WM user, I can say that ... they're all good (just about). Each of them (just about) has something that's worthwhile, and you should go ahead and try a series of them to see what fits.

+1

dhave wrote:

Over the past five years, I've worked up and down the spectrum from minimalist (wmii), to lightweight WM (fluxbox, pekwm), to middle-of-the-road WM (OpenBox, WindowMaker), to lightweight DE (Xfce) to the whole shebang (KDE3 and 4). I can honestly say that I liked them all.

yes, and it is/can be a lot of fun. i tried some (not all) and found my favorite but it took some time.
which one? doesn't matter for you.
anyway, i learned a lot and that is awesome. *oops*

dhave wrote:

I see no harm in using one WM or DE for a while till you feel like a change, then trying a dramatically different one. Hey, why use Linux if you don't exercise your liberty (of course, you also have the liberty not to exercise your liberty)? Arch is especially well suited for installing and changing different WMs and DEs.

again +1

you want it, do it.
oh, but don't forget to backup some config-files

Vintendo · 2008-08-21 23:39:45

And use xbindkeys, so you don't have to set all the keybindings with a new WM. Makes it a lot easier to switch WM's. And do yourself a favour and try XMonad!

Inxsible · 2008-08-21 23:42:42

Vintendo wrote:

And use xbindkeys, so you don't have to set all the keybindings with a new WM. Makes it a lot easier to switch WM's. And do yourself a favour and try XMonad!

Amen to that !

I used to have WM specific keys and was a headache when I changed. But its been a while since I went WM hopping so its not been much of a problem.

cemeth · 2008-08-22 03:14:04

Some short opinions:

Openbox: a nice WM, it just takes a while to configure it properly and to install/configure additional programs you might want, e.g. a panel, xbindkeys, xscreensaver and so on.
If you install TOO many of such addon programs, you might be interested in a desktop instead because that's the point of having one.

Fluxbox: like an easier version of Openbox, already supplies you with a panel and other things. The config files are not XML so it's easier to edit them in the conventional way.

fvwm: incredibly configurable, can be made to look and behave like almost any other WM... but it's very time-consuming and complex to create a good configuration or change an existing one. Plus, the default configuration is a joke, so you're pretty much forced to do that.

Tiling WMs like WMII or Ion: they are good if you want to control everything with the keyboard, and if you mostly use terminal windows. It gets a bit annoying when you want to use apps such as Gimp though. And I've felt it restricts me a bit too much when the WM *really* manages your windows automatically. It is faster in some cases but, well, I prefer to manage my windows "manually" after all.

KDE 3: feature-rich, the best desktop environment if you just want power and flexibility.

KDE 4: still too early to use, many features are still lacking and stability problems. Will be a very good and beautiful desktop soon though.

Gnome: like KDE 3 but simpler, less features (biggest criticism: it's so easy that some features more advanced users want are missing or hard to activate (gconf...)), more stable and consistent though because they're not changing so much on each release. Gnome apps are also more consistent because they follow the Human Interface Guidelines (KDE didn't even have such rules before 4.x).

Xfce (what I've been using since quite some time now): like a light-weight version of Gnome. Use this if you just want some of the features a desktop provides but if you feel that Gnome and KDE are overkill because you don't use many of their features anyway.

Last edited by cemeth (2008-08-22 03:15:44)

sand_man · 2008-08-22 03:36:40

I've gone through many of the different WMs and DEs and I always seem to come back to openbox <3

fflarex · 2008-08-22 04:12:01

I always seem to switch to KDE or GNOME sometime around the release of their newest versions, but end up going back to something lighter like xfce or openbox even though my computer is quite powerful and could easily handle something much heavier like compiz or even vista...

I've also had pleasant experiences with awesome (though I eventually found it to be too much control to handle), and unpleasant experiences with fluxbox, pekwm, and fvwm. This was most likely due to not giving enough attention to their configuration though, and not because they're bad at what they do.

I'm currently in a gnome setup to make sure my new icon theme is truly complete, but after that I think I will move to openbox for play and awesome for work.

Last edited by fflarex (2008-08-22 04:20:46)

iphitus · 2008-08-22 06:43:52

They all work with Arch equally well

I'm using openbox today.

smakked · 2008-08-22 07:51:40

Im using Xfce atm , i have come from Gnome which i like but found it a little slow?
I like OB but cbf setting it up , maybe one day ill give it a good go.

Army · 2008-08-22 08:38:42

If you want an Openbox already nice looking and being able to work with right from the start, you could give LXDE a try. I use it atm and it's really nice. LXDE is an Openbox for the lazy guys

amokkk · 2008-08-22 12:17:26

I would recommend Openbox/PekWM/Fluxbox and if U want a tiling WM - DWM/Awesome(v2.x). Xmonad is probably pretty cool too but I haven't tried it because of dependencies,

richs-lxh · 2008-08-31 23:14:23

Fluxbox. Light, fast and easily configurable. Some very very nice themes as well. Currently using Dyne:

Very nice themes at http://www.box-look.org

The Xfe file manager is also very intuitive. As a new user to Arch, I like the way I can just click any file in my /home directory and edit it (sudo nano for system files). The tree view for searching directories for files is also very handy, and fast.

After I removed Gnome completely, I tried all the wm's in the repos and liked them all, but I used Fluxbox on Debian so I kind of already know my way around it. I had the Xfe file manager on Sarge.

I recommend removing Xfce/Kde/Gnome completely and just running a wm on top of X, you really notice the speed difference without so much clutter.

richs-lxh

haxit · 2008-08-31 23:16:28

Openbox in my honest opinion. You won't regret it.

skottish · 2008-08-31 23:55:37

+1 for E17. If I wasn't using that I'd be using Openbox.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-08-21 19:10:30

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#27 2008-08-21 19:43:28

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#28 2008-08-21 23:16:12

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#29 2008-08-21 23:39:45

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#30 2008-08-21 23:42:42

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#31 2008-08-22 03:14:04

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#32 2008-08-22 03:36:40

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#33 2008-08-22 04:12:01

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#34 2008-08-22 06:43:52

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#35 2008-08-22 07:51:40

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#36 2008-08-22 08:38:42

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#37 2008-08-22 12:17:26

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#38 2008-08-31 23:14:23

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#39 2008-08-31 23:16:28

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

#40 2008-08-31 23:55:37

Re: Preferable window manager for arch?

Board footer