Why Fluxbox ?

[Blazing Teens]

Hi everyone,
This subject is simple.
My question is : Why Fluxbox ? Why not OpenBox ? Why not enlightenment ?
What making fluxbox special ?
I hope releasing LMDE fluxbox soon.

[lmintnewb]

Why fluxbox is too general a question. Really comes down to a matter of preference and taste. Some people like it, others like something else. Think fluxbox is a good WM, because it's a really light way to graphically interact with a linux OS. Doesn't use up system resources and add serious amounts of system overhead and footprint. Lower resource usage and a lighter footprint makes for a faster and more responsive PC. Whether it's on high spec, or particularly on low spec comps. Easy to make it really user friendly once someone has spent time learning about it. Though with that opinion, same applies to many other WM's too. I like others just as much as fluxbox.

Really just comes down to your tastes. Which seems with so many choices available in linux. Is the deciding factor for why people choose whatever they choose. No shortage of choices, no shortage of people with different tastes in gui or other software used by a linux OS either. Why fluxbox ? Do you like it, want to try it ? Want to use something else or combinations of something else ? Great ... nothing stopping ya. ENJOY!

2 cents.

[jeffreyC]

Fluxbox is as light or lighter than Openbox and as fast.
Fluxbox is configured with plain text files instead of XML files ( I don't know about you but XML makes me feel like I am going cross-eyed when I look at it)
It is easy to make Fluxbox look good.

[richyrich]

viewtopic.php?f=142&t=45346&p=261295&hilit=fluxbox#p261295

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10828&p=445057&hilit=athlon+mx440#p445057

[vrkalak]

On my laptop, I have both Mint-9 Fluxbox and LMDX with Fluxbox added.

I find Fluxbox easier to use and configure than Openbox. I have used Openbox for a couple years now.

Fluxbox has the ability of icons in the menu, and thanks to Kendall's script - Fluxbox has a self-updating menu.
. . . and full-transparency, of everything, without a 3rd-party App, (like xcomposing or cairo-composing)

Fluxbox, just seems more full-featured than Openbox.
Fluxbox, also, has better/more on-line resources and documentation available.

Fluxbox - easy, fast and light ... doesn't get any better than this.

[MALsPa]

I don't have Mint's Fluxbox version installed, but I have both Fluxbox and Openbox installed in different distros. I like using both, and while I can't decide which one is "better," I find myself logging into Openbox sessions more often than Fluxbox sessions. Not sure why. Fluxbox's config files are a bit easier to work with, I guess, and I like the tabs for application windows. Openbox doesn't come with a panel, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for folks who want to just choose their own panel. Fluxbox might be a bit "lighter" than Openbox, but I can't tell any difference just by using one or the other. I'm not sure about this, but it seems that more distros come with Openbox or have Openbox spins than Fluxbox, maybe. Both are great as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure that lots of people would like to see a Mint Openbox version.

[MALsPa]

Some of you may be interested in Urukrama's "A comparison of four window managers" from a few years back: http://urukrama.wordpress.com/2008/04/2 ... -managers/

[nunol]

Fluxbox has the ability of icons in the menu...

Openbox 3.5.0 also has icons (new feature): http://openbox.org/wiki/Openbox:Changelog#3.5.0
Didn't test how they work.

[Kendall]

Simple: The name "Fluxbox" sounds way cooler than the name "Openbox".

[asymmetros]

On the contrary, i prefer Openbox cause it comes with nothing at all -no even panel. You have to make your selections from the scratch.
Autostart.sh is a simple text file, for menu and keybindings you can use obmenu and obkey respectively -it saves you a lot of time.
But i think i ll give Fluxbox another try in the future -i highly appreciate that wm too.