You are not logged in.

#1 2010-04-24 23:19:30

Agurken
Member
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 61

Openbox vs. Awesome

Hi guys.

I'm currently running Openbox WM. But I've been thinking about trying Awesome WM.

So I want to know, is there any reason for changing.

What are the Pro's and Con's for both WM's?

Offline

#2 2010-04-25 00:10:10

splittercode
Member
From: WI, USA
Registered: 2010-03-16
Posts: 203

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

I'm sure this has been discussed a lot already, but I've been thinking about this same issue as well, so here is my shameless opinion (I use awesomewm).

Awesomewm
PROS:
Tiling saves a lot of time if your workflow tends to involve multiple windows.

Everything is edited through one config file, so things are a lot easier to keep track of and integrate, whereas in openbox you have a couple config files for openbox alone, plus ones for whatever trays/panels/etc. that you are using.

The more I learned to not use the mouse, the faster I got things done with awesomewm. (much faster than I ever did with openbox).

tags > workspaces  (you can combine/uncombine different tags at will with awesomewm, with everything on each selected tag nicely tiling for you, for example)

It's awesome.

CONS:
I suppose that initially it is harder to configure than openbox, as there is no equivalent of things like obmenu and obkey for awesomewm (though im sure not everyone uses those).

Some people think tiling wm's are ugly and like to have window borders.  I strongly disagree, but... some people say that.

--

As for openbox, the only reason I can think of to use it is if none of the above PROS appeal to you, or if you just really enjoy floating windows.  Perhaps someone else here can make a better case for using Openbox than I.  For some people, tiling doesn't really offer a benefit to their work.  To each his own.  You really just have to use a tiling wm for a week or two before you'll understand if it's for you or not.

Last edited by splittercode (2010-04-25 00:12:25)

Offline

#3 2010-04-25 00:12:11

Agurken
Member
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 61

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

One of the reasons why I'm even considering (is that spelled correct?) Awesome WM, if for the tiling smile

Offline

#4 2010-04-25 00:19:46

evr
Arch Linux f@h Team Member
Registered: 2009-01-23
Posts: 554

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

i would say if you're even considering it, just install it and see if you like it.  Awesome is a small package with few dependencies, no reason not to have it along with openbox while your trying it out.  But just be warned... once you go tiling, you'll probably never go back smile

Offline

#5 2010-04-25 00:20:39

Kiwi
Member
Registered: 2008-02-24
Posts: 153

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

I suppose that initially it is harder to configure than openbox, as there is no equivalent of things like obmenu and obkey for awesomewm (though im sure not everyone uses those).

awesome-freedesktop.png

Click the image! big_smile

Offline

#6 2010-04-25 00:23:53

splittercode
Member
From: WI, USA
Registered: 2010-03-16
Posts: 203

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Kiwi wrote:

Click the image! big_smile

Ah!  *bows head in shame* tongue

Offline

#7 2010-04-25 00:35:55

josh000
Member
Registered: 2010-04-05
Posts: 37

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

I have never used a tiling wm...what does it mean exactly? They your first window is maximized, if you open a second they are automatically resized and side by side, if you open a 3rd they are also resized so they all are shown on screen at the same time....

That seems like it would be really annoying?

Offline

#8 2010-04-25 00:42:21

splittercode
Member
From: WI, USA
Registered: 2010-03-16
Posts: 203

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

josh000 wrote:

I have never used a tiling wm...what does it mean exactly? They your first window is maximized, if you open a second they are automatically resized and side by side, if you open a 3rd they are also resized so they all are shown on screen at the same time....

That seems like it would be really annoying?

Haha, yeah thats pretty much what they do.  There are different kinds of tiling wm though.  You can have the wm dynamically place them according to it's own formula, or define your own grids upon which it will place them.  Awesome is the dynamic kind.  There are around 10 different layout types for awesome, of which I use only 3. 

You can still resize windows on the fly with awesome though, so it's not as static as it seems.  You can also change the layout type on the fly as well (example, switch main window from horizontal to vertical).  It's kind of hard to understand what the point is until you actually try it I think.

Offline

#9 2010-04-25 01:01:55

Agurken
Member
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 61

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

I can just install awesome with:
# pacman -S awesome

And then edit the .xinitrc file

like:
exec awesome
#exec openbox-session

And then it works?
And if I want to go back its just change the .xinitrc file again?

Offline

#10 2010-04-25 01:05:05

evr
Arch Linux f@h Team Member
Registered: 2009-01-23
Posts: 554

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Agurken wrote:

I can just install awesome with:
# pacman -S awesome

And then edit the .xinitrc file

like:
exec awesome
#exec openbox-session

And then it works?
And if I want to go back its just change the .xinitrc file again?

yep

Offline

#11 2010-04-25 01:31:22

Agurken
Member
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 61

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Without anyone effects the other?
What about programs.. There is no editing needed? Like if i want to run ncmpcpp with mpd, I'll just type ncmpcpp in xterm in Awesome?

Offline

#12 2010-04-25 01:33:22

Nimatek
Member
Registered: 2009-09-22
Posts: 23

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

I've switched from Openbox to Awesome a few months ago and I like it a lot. Once everything was configured exactly to my liking, which took a little while admittedly, I didn't want to go back. I've tried dwm before that but found it a bit too minimalistic and lacking some out of the box functionality that I require, but Awesome which was based on it kind of hit that sweet spot for me.

Offline

#13 2010-04-25 01:53:09

splittercode
Member
From: WI, USA
Registered: 2010-03-16
Posts: 203

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Agurken wrote:

Without anyone effects the other?
What about programs.. There is no editing needed? Like if i want to run ncmpcpp with mpd, I'll just type ncmpcpp in xterm in Awesome?

Yes, everything will work the same way.  All a window manager does is just that, manage windows.  Just be aware that awesome is mostly keyboard driven, so you might want to have some of the keyboard shortcuts handy when you first log in so you're not totally lost.

You can find them here: http://www.notesmine.com/awesome_keyboa … _shortcuts

Offline

#14 2010-04-25 02:23:24

Agurken
Member
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 61

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Thanks guys smile

Offline

#15 2010-04-25 13:25:52

Agurken
Member
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 61

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Hi again guys, is there anyway to remove the icon, standing left of the tags? That A.

Offline

#16 2010-04-25 14:05:54

splittercode
Member
From: WI, USA
Registered: 2010-03-16
Posts: 203

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Agurken wrote:

Hi again guys, is there anyway to remove the icon, standing left of the tags? That A.

In ~/.config/awesome/rc.lua there should be a section that looks like this

mywibox[s].widgets = {
        {
            mylauncher,
            mytaglist[s],
            mypromptbox[s],
            layout = awful.widget.layout.horizontal.leftright
        },

just comment out mylauncher by changing it to

mywibox[s].widgets = {
        {
            -- mylauncher,
            mytaglist[s],
            mypromptbox[s],
            layout = awful.widget.layout.horizontal.leftright
        },

I'd recommend reading the following, as they'll answer pretty much any of the basic questions you'll have.

http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/My_first_awesome
http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/FAQ
http://awesome.naquadah.org/wiki/Awesom … figuration

Offline

#17 2010-04-25 14:48:49

Agurken
Member
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 61

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Thanks

Offline

#18 2010-04-25 18:14:23

HoboJ
Member
Registered: 2010-04-04
Posts: 28

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

I too am curious about tiling window managers. Most of my questions have already been answered here except for one. If I'm playing a game and I tell it to go fullscreen will it actually go fullscreen or will it be stuck in its own tile?

Offline

#19 2010-04-25 18:35:04

Deckard
Member
From: Munich/Germany
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 14

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Depends on the game. Some go fullscreen and others are stuck.
But 'Modkey + F' is the solution for this behaviour. smile


If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail

Offline

#20 2010-04-25 19:19:37

KimTjik
Member
From: Sweden
Registered: 2007-08-22
Posts: 715

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Agurken wrote:

Without anyone effects the other?
What about programs.. There is no editing needed? Like if i want to run ncmpcpp with mpd, I'll just type ncmpcpp in xterm in Awesome?

You've received some answers already, but I could add that modkey+r will be an equivalent to typical run-box by alt+f2. If you prefer to use the built in menu (or addition shown earlier in the thread) it has its keyboard binding as well, modkey+w.

Otherwise I would suggest dmenu through yeganesh as a wrapper (instead of only entries alphabetically it uses a simple database to record and show your most frequently used program first, or most frequently used by letters given).

Choosing a tiling wm works best if you choose applications which work well with only key bindings. For mail I did use mutt, and still like it, but claws-mail is also a pretty good option, especially since it has built in support for mutt-keybindings. For browsers choosing a solution with good keybindings makes the work flow better, like choosing Firefox but the vimperator add-on, or a specialized one like uzbl-browser. A whole lot of console applications make better sense in a tiling wm, like vifm for file browsing (just had to mention it since I really like it's simplicity).

A warning: tiling wm:s are addictive!

Offline

#21 2010-04-25 19:36:35

itsbrad212
Member
From: Chicago, USA
Registered: 2010-01-23
Posts: 1,848

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Agurken wrote:

Without anyone effects the other?
What about programs.. There is no editing needed? Like if i want to run ncmpcpp with mpd, I'll just type ncmpcpp in xterm in Awesome?

Running programs is as easy as "Mod4(Windows Key) + r" and typing the command (if it a terminal program, run xterm -e program or whatever terminal emulator you use. cool

Offline

#22 2010-05-29 19:33:52

gaunt
Member
Registered: 2009-12-13
Posts: 62

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

You don't have to run a terminal from awesome's Mod4+r menu - you can just hit Mod4+Enter

Offline

#23 2010-05-29 20:52:11

ijanos
Member
From: Budapest, Hungary
Registered: 2008-03-30
Posts: 441
Website

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Agurken wrote:

Hi guys.

I'm currently running Openbox WM. But I've been thinking about trying Awesome WM.

So I want to know, is there any reason for changing.

What are the Pro's and Con's for both WM's?

Hey, window managers are like cloths to your applications. Of course, others can gave you tips which one to try on but in the end your choice is what matters.

edit: oh great, a month old topic...

Last edited by ijanos (2010-05-29 20:53:42)

Offline

#24 2010-05-29 21:38:14

demian
Member
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 709

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

I prefer Openbox. It handles floating much better.
I do use tiling, too, though.
There are applications that can add tiling functionality to any window manager/DE.

I'm using stiler which can be easily bound to hotkeys so I only tile if i want to.


no place like /home
github

Offline

#25 2010-05-29 21:45:47

Agurken
Member
Registered: 2010-01-31
Posts: 61

Re: Openbox vs. Awesome

Thanks, for all the reply's, I'm sticking with Awesome, i find it Awesome smile

Last edited by Agurken (2010-05-29 21:45:57)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB