openbox v fluxbox

phrakture · 2004-11-19 22:31:43

Ok, if you're here, you read the title and should understand that this is not a flame thread. I am seriously looking for pros/cons of each WM and people's opinions. I have a really good laptop, so speed isn't the issue. I like the *box WMs alot.

I am interested in the following topics:

Configuration - openbox's config files are much cleaner/more modern, and they have obconf, which is great. Fluxbox has config files in a slightly better location IMHO (.fluxbox instead of .config/openbox) and also has some config files which allow some great features - such as the apps file.

LookAndFeel - both have the same general look, but to me, it appears that openbox has better looking themes, and also has the ability to render shadowing on WM fonts (title bars and things). I am not sure which has more easilly changable themes, because I haven't delved into OB's theming yet.

Speed - Yes I said above it didn't matter. However this may be a deciding factor. Will the xml parsing make OB seem slower? I don't know. The differences shouldn't be much on my machine (P4 3.0GHz w/ HT [SMP]), but I'd still like to know.

Community - I was on both mailing lists for a bit. The guy who runs the OB one (also the creator of OB??) is a prick. Fluxbox has a much better community. This is just for discussion, as I could really care less.

Thanks in advance for any and all replies

shlo · 2004-11-19 23:14:19

fluxbox has fluxconf, about equivelant to obconf. Truthfully, I could not tell you distinct advantages either way, but having used both for at least 2 weeks each I would go with flux.

i3839 · 2004-11-20 00:54:41

Editing the menu is very easy with your favourite editor when you add something like the next to the settings submenu:

    [exec] (Menu)    {editor ~/.fluxbox-cvs/menu}
    [exec] (Keys)    {editor ~/.fluxbox-cvs/keys}
    [exec] (Init)    {editor ~/.fluxbox-cvs/init}
    [exec] (Groups) {editor ~/.fluxbox-cvs/groups}

(I patched the cvs version to use another config dir to keep it seperate from the stable fluxbox.) The config syntax is so simple that it isn't worth it to use a seperate program to manage the menu imho.

I never used openbox, but if it doesn't have integrated tabs in the window titlebar then I'm not interested. If you ask me most default Fluxbox themes are damn ugly, but luckily the cvs version seems to have better default themes (and you only need one good one).

whatah · 2004-11-20 01:20:21

Two gripes i have with openbox are: 1) it doesn't have transparencies on the toolbars and 2) writing a menu file is a pain in the ass (unless there is something i am missing). Openbox does have the nice alt-tab and workspace switching dialog, but until it becomes easier to write a menu, i am staying with flux.

dammit · 2004-11-20 08:41:48

with flux, is there a way of the preventing the window gaining automatic focus when doin alt+tab. It gets annoying when i am jogging thru the windows, cuz with openbox it just comes up with a small rectangle status.

thanks

Mr Green · 2004-11-20 09:05:25

I like Openbox

Legout · 2004-11-20 09:25:38

i used both of them for some time. I would prefer fluxbox.
1. Easier to configure the menu
2. You an find much more documentations about fluxbox in the WWW.
3. Transperancy
4. Better looking themes on 3rd-party-sites (especially http://ikaro.dk/news.php)

The only thing i don´t like on fluxbox is, i can´t use pypanel. And i like pypanel very much.

But at the moment im using fvwm-devel. I never found such a highly configurable WM. And with fvwm-crystal it looks DAMM good.

zeppelin · 2004-11-20 11:32:51

phrakture wrote:

Configuration - openbox's config files are much cleaner/more modern, and they have obconf, which is great. Fluxbox has config files in a slightly better location IMHO (.fluxbox instead of .config/openbox)

it is more modern (as you call it) to put the config files under .config/ parent directory. MonoDevelop does it too.

the idea (I think is this):
you run a simple app, it creats ~/.FOO
and even if you remove it, it will be there.

imagine that you're running the same installation (cause arch allows you) for 5 years.

imaging if you do now ls $HOME -a
you will get a thousand of . directories for every mf application. now is that good? NO it's not

punkrockguy318 · 2004-11-20 15:21:54

zeppelin wrote:

phrakture wrote:
Configuration - openbox's config files are much cleaner/more modern, and they have obconf, which is great. Fluxbox has config files in a slightly better location IMHO (.fluxbox instead of .config/openbox)
it is more modern (as you call it) to put the config files under .config/ parent directory. MonoDevelop does it too.
the idea (I think is this):
you run a simple app, it creats ~/.FOO
and even if you remove it, it will be there.
imagine that you're running the same installation (cause arch allows you) for 5 years.
imaging if you do now ls $HOME -a
you will get a thousand of . directories for every mf application. now is that good? NO it's not

Does this apply for ALL applications? Should I start moving configs for my apps to ~/.config/myprogram.conf? Even if they are single file?

And also: If I put my configs in .config, they shouldn't be dotfiles correct?

Do you have a link to this specification?

xerxes2 · 2004-11-20 18:56:26

maybe ~/.config could be the default for all system files, like .bashrc and so forth,

zeppelin · 2004-11-21 12:22:00

http://freedesktop.org/Standards/config-spec
in the plan section
now I'm sure my guess was correct!

no need to be dotfiles anymore

punkrockguy318 · 2004-11-21 12:38:08

zeppelin wrote:

http://freedesktop.org/Standards/config-spec
in the plan section
now I'm sure my guess was correct!
no need to be dotfiles anymore

Looks like freedesktop.org is looking to adopt a standard configuration API, or a configuration registry. Good stuff! The have a link to the elektra project, but it comments that it has too many problems to use yet. A configuration registry would be awesome for the linux desktop.

sykotik · 2004-11-22 07:32:36

phrakture wrote:

LookAndFeel - both have the same general look, but to me, it appears that openbox has better looking themes, and also has the ability to render shadowing on WM fonts (title bars and things). I am not sure which has more easilly changable themes, because I haven't delved into OB's theming yet.

Fluxbox can apply shadows to anything that is themeable via fluxbox(menu, toolbar, titlebar)

Fluxconf is a extremely viable option for fluxbox configuring, btw fluxconf is in [extra].

Fluxbox also has fbgm(fluxbox-generate_menu), if your into the whole menu thing. Fbgm allows you to edit a simple script and add certain apps/misc things and they will automatically be added when the new menu is generated, some people seem to like this alot.

The only issue I would have with speed is that fluxbox seems to have a mem-leak after having a large uptime. The dev team hasnt quite figured it out yet, but after my system has been up for awhile i generally restartx because flux seems sluggish

sickboy · 2004-11-22 12:08:23

Openbox supports pipe menu's whereas fluxbox doesn't.
Although the dev version of fluxbox is able to show a list of wallpapers in a menu (that can be set with fbsetbg).

phrakture · 2004-11-22 15:37:35

for the record, I've been using fluxbox for as long as I can remember... yeah I used onther things, but I remember fluxobox 0.1.X before there was even a devel version out.
I tried out OB3 recently and just didn't like it.... dunno why. It didn't seem as good... hard to explain, just a gut feeling...

sykotik · 2004-11-23 00:43:09

sickboy wrote:

Openbox supports pipe menu's whereas fluxbox doesn't.

Pipe menus are overrated

phrakture · 2004-11-23 01:33:04

sykotik wrote:

sickboy wrote:
Openbox supports pipe menu's whereas fluxbox doesn't.
Pipe menus are overrated

wtf is a pipe menu?
like live updating menus?

that slows the whole process down - that's why flux doesn't have them...

whatah · 2004-11-23 04:55:44

flux does have pipe menus. It's workspace list and backgrounds menu are both live updating. They don't slow it down as much as menu transparencies do, though.

Zerosleep · 2004-11-23 23:56:29

I dig the xml and the themes alot more. And the fact that they don't even have a taskbar [which is a good thing, imo] makes me happy. Another small feature that I can't live without is where I can roll up [aka shade] windows with the middle mouse wheel [like xfce4].

kumo · 2004-11-24 19:38:57

I like pipe menus: especially for a hierarchy of wallpapers or documents. The menu is only created when you move the mouse over it so it's not as if the pipe menus are recreated everytime you open the root menu.

I thought there was something about how openbox had all these standards so that you could send standard messages to it (and kde/gnome) telling windows to move from one workspace to another...

sykotik · 2004-11-26 14:46:52

whatah wrote:

flux does have pipe menus. It's workspace list and backgrounds menu are both live updating. They don't slow it down as much as menu transparencies do, though.

Fluxbox has some forms of pipemenus, but there are no features for users to create their own, and even at that they are just grabbing text from init or some random directory list(as far as background menu in svn, i think it requires a reconfigure, but I havent used it yet so I dont really know). Actual pipemenus that openbox supports are much slower because they can handle app output. If menu trans is really slower then the workspace list/background menu I think you have other hardware spec. problems

dedhart · 2006-08-15 01:05:08

Ok I've been trying openbox for a few days now and even got a good looking pypanel at the bottom of the screen, but I'm beating my head trying to configure the menu, everytime I tried to add submenus, it just resorts to the crappy default menu. I tried menumaker, so I know putting menus within menus is possible but even when trying to copy the configuration in the menu made by menumaker, It still doesn't work for me. Is there anywhere I can get help with making an openbox menu?

benplaut · 2006-08-15 01:12:34

Let's make it simple:
If you like fluxbox's panel, use fluxbox.

If you find their panel to be rather static and unconfigurable, use openbox with whatever damn panel you want.

Community - I was on both mailing lists for a bit. The guy who runs the OB one (also the creator of OB??) is a prick. Fluxbox has a much better community. This is just for discussion, as I could really care less.

I've had the exact opposite impression... but i mainly use the irc channels (#openbox@oftc, #fluxbox@freenode). Here's the answer i got when i asked that:

03:08:37 @ Mikachu | ?
03:08:48 @ Mikachu | i would assume he is referring to mwilson
03:08:50 @ Mikachu |
03:09:38 @ Mikachu | and i don't "run" the mailing list
03:09:43 @ Mikachu | in fact i have no control over it

Mikachu is the main dev, fwiw

magnum_opus · 2006-08-15 01:19:07

i'm with fluxbox for sorta one and a half reasons

its an 800x600 laptop so i actually use tabs fairly often.
also i like the rightclick configurability

also for some nebulous reason i just feel more comfortable in fluxbox

Legout wrote:

The only thing i don´t like on fluxbox is, i can´t use pypanel. And i like pypanel very much.

sure you can, rightclick
fluxbox->config->toolbar->visible
then start pypanel/add to .xinitrc

dedhart · 2006-08-15 02:15:39

dedhart wrote:

Ok I've been trying openbox for a few days now and even got a good looking pypanel at the bottom of the screen, but I'm beating my head trying to configure the menu, everytime I tried to add submenus, it just resorts to the crappy default menu. I tried menumaker, so I know putting menus within menus is possible but even when trying to copy the configuration in the menu made by menumaker, It still doesn't work for me. Is there anywhere I can get help with making an openbox menu?

Allright I figured it out, typing the full path to the file into firefox gave me the lines which there were errors, was able to fix them.

Ok IMHO here are the advantages of both openbox and fluxbox.

Openbox:
looks better and runs smoother than fluxbox
Freedom to chose panel (or go without if you prefer)

Fluxbox:
No need to install or configure an additional panel (default is fine for most)
Easier to configure by far

Arch Linux

#1 2004-11-19 22:31:43

openbox v fluxbox

#2 2004-11-19 23:14:19

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#3 2004-11-20 00:54:41

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#4 2004-11-20 01:20:21

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#5 2004-11-20 08:41:48

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#6 2004-11-20 09:05:25

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#7 2004-11-20 09:25:38

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#8 2004-11-20 11:32:51

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#9 2004-11-20 15:21:54

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#10 2004-11-20 18:56:26

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#11 2004-11-21 12:22:00

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#12 2004-11-21 12:38:08

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#13 2004-11-22 07:32:36

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#14 2004-11-22 12:08:23

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#15 2004-11-22 15:37:35

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#16 2004-11-23 00:43:09

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#17 2004-11-23 01:33:04

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#18 2004-11-23 04:55:44

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#19 2004-11-23 23:56:29

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#20 2004-11-24 19:38:57

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#21 2004-11-26 14:46:52

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#22 2006-08-15 01:05:08

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#23 2006-08-15 01:12:34

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#24 2006-08-15 01:19:07

Re: openbox v fluxbox

#25 2006-08-15 02:15:39

Re: openbox v fluxbox

Board footer