“If you’re planning on using Fluxbox, the key is, like everything in Linux is that you learn a little something and have fun doing it. Experiment with different styles and configuration. That is one of the advantages to this type of window manager – you can make it look like you want.”
I’ve been using Fluxbox for the last 3 or 4 months now, and absolutely loving it. Several other window managers I’ve used that that worked quite well are Blackbox, Openbox, Pekwm, and Icewm, but I always come back to Fluxbox. It just feels right to me, and it’s a joy to use.
Sure, it’s not for everyone, but those of you that like to play around with different window managers should try it because it’s very easy to use and you might like it, too.
Personally I’ve found something like fluxbox (windowmaker is decent too) is great for when I want to actually get some work done. That is have a bunch of xterms open to a number of servers while being able to quickly switch workspaces and group things together if needed. Easily customizable, and can be made to look half decent without being intrusive. (One little trick I recently came up with: I have number of kerberos instances that I use that can be tricky to know what xterm is running as which , so I did this. In the fluxbox menu set something like this [exec] (admin) {xterm -bg darkred -fg black -e su username.admin} etc…)
As home for me though, and for most users I’d suspect, gnome (or kde if that’s your thing 🙂
“Personally I’ve found something like fluxbox (windowmaker is decent too) is great for when I want to actually get some work done. That is have a bunch of xterms open to a number of servers while being able to quickly switch workspaces and group things together if needed.”
I completely agree. I have a 1.8 Ghz Pentium-M with 2GB RAM at work, but a use fluxbox just because it’s so incredibly easy organize tasks and switch between them lightening fast. I typically have 12-20 aterms open, most of them logged into various development machines and working on various sandboxes. Fluxbox is second only to vim in terms of total time saved at work.
I use GNOME at home on a 1.5 Ghz Pentium-M with 256MB RAM and I’m tired of being deep in swap all the time. I’m seriously considering switching to E17 CVS.
You’re making an unfair comparison. A lightweight window manager with 8 times the RAM?
Modern computing environments can easily use more than 256MB. That’s the reality.
I find it offensive that cut the entry price big name computer manufacturers still ship computers with 256MB. RAM is often more important than CPU or HD speed.
Upgrade to 1GB and re-evaluate. Gnome, despite attempts at reduction lately, has a lot of bells and whistles. But don’t blame them if your RAM specs are from 2001!
Yes, I agree as well. I’ve found larger DE’s to just give me stuff to toy with…
I have found though, that Windowmaker is the most helpful to me getting work done; but that’s because it’s the easiest to configure new programs.
the review is like fluxbox itself: short, fast, and clean.
when i show friends the power of a linux desktop then i start kde, but when i want to start some x app fast, i just start fluxbox and it gets the job done within seconds.
Most great desktop applications are either GTK or QT based, so you’ll have to load all those bulky libs anyway. I tried it and firefox or OOo doesn’t start any faster.
Flux might be good for older hardware, but I don’t see why someone would run it on modern hardware.
I run Fluxbox with a lot of standard GTK apps and I don’t feel the weight of all those ‘bulky libs’. The whole graphical environment feels very fast, clean and simple.
Yeah, it’s not really GTK or Qt that’s slow (although FLTK or EWL would be quicker). It’s mainly the huge memory footprint and all the config/lock file I/O that comes along with GNOME or KDE. Start Evolution on GNOME and see how many files get read before the application actually starts. None of that happens with fluxbox.
However, that doesn’t get fluxbox off the hook completely. It still incurs a massive overhead in pure window management torture tests such as “create and close as many empty windows as possible in 60 seconds.” FVWM, sawfish, metacity, and especially Enlightenment rule in such tests.
Totally right. Fluxbox has been, IME, the slowest WM out there. It has some of the nicest effects, but it’s to the point where I notice pauses to raise iconified windows on a 700 celeron. I’m referring to the development version.
what I have noticed with fluxbox is that it for some reason runs slower than molasis in January with dual monitors (xinerama) and nvidia hardware accelleration.
now….. granted, I have not tried this on other systems or other distros, but I have tried it with different kernels and nvidia drivers. Anyway…. maybe this is spacific to my hardware configuration.
I don’t know why this is but I don’t experience the same things with kde, gnome, or windowmaker.
The crazy thing is that when I run a single monitor with or without hardware acceleration it works fine (must be a xinerama thing).
I really like fluxbox and I used use it as my primary wm but as of late I stick with kde because it seems to work the best with my video/monitor configuration and just suits my needs better.
now, I add to all of this….. I use some fairly high end hardware….. as far as desktop performance with different window managers….. it really dosen’t matter to me, but for some reason with my video configuration…. Fluxbox is sloooow.
It’s mainly about choice, not about having old or new hardware (although you’re right in saying that Fluxbox is better than KDE or GNOME on older hardware). Personally I prefer Fluxbox and Window Maker because they appeal to my sense of aesthetics while KDE and GNOME fail to do that. So why should I use the complex and, IMHO, inaesthetic desktop environments just because I happen to have modern hardware?
Another point that is too often neglected is that small window managers have less code than big desktop environments and, hence, they tend to have less bugs and security vulnerabilities. If you appreciate stability and security, you’ll choose a lightweight window manager. And if you appreciate the beauty of simplicity, you’ll choose Fluxbox or Window Maker. 😉
Security? Pray tell, when was the last window manager exploit? Don’t say explorer! That’s not just a window manager!
Seriously, the word security is now officially a buzz word.
After using Fluxbox for a long time, configuring it was the funnest thing ever. Editing .fluxbox/keys, .fluxbox/apps, .fluxbox/menu, .fluxbox/startup and making my own style was very satisfying.
Fluxbox is awesome on older machines but on more
powerfull systems I prefer something with a little
more eye cady. The tabs are awesome but now days
everything has tabs built in so I don’t see
as much of a need for them.
Tabs allow you to also tab together windows of different types. This is not handled with in-app tabs. Also don’t forget the cool window level features such as ToggleDecor, Sticky and Shade.
[quote]The window managers I like most are the ones that are best configured by hand. Someone once wrote that one of his greatest pleasures was spending a whole afternoon tweaking the window manager’s configuration.[/quote]
I think this mentality clearly highlights the difference between geeks and power users. Geeks will play with something just for the joy of playing with it. (Where they find the time to waste endless hours playing with config files is beyond me.) Power users spend as little time as necessary playing with something in order to squeeze the most functionality out of it. If a window manager forces me to hack config files in order to make it suitable for my tastes, I probably won’t use it, unless the default config is about 95% of how I’d like it out of the box. Give me some nice Options dialog so that I can spend 15 minutes tweaking the damn thing to my liking instead of 15 hours. And make that part modular so that masochists who like doing things the hard way can do so.
As for this particular window manager, don’t think I could use it. Since I run all my windows maximized (being half-blind is a bitch .. I need my windows BIG), I don’t have any desktop space to click on. And my middle mouse button is configured to maximize windows, so that would be pretty useless too.
“If a window manager forces me to hack config files in order to make it suitable for my tastes, I probably won’t use it, unless the default config is about 95% of how I’d like it out of the box.”
Fluxbox works about 95% of how any sane person wants their window manager to work. fluxbox_generate_menu will find your applications and guess how they should be categorized in your root menu. About 80% of the config options in .fluxbox/init can be modified right through the fluxbox config item in the menu. It took me more than 5 minutes to figure out how to change a keybinding in GNOME’s keyboard shortcuts tool, whereas .fluxbox/keys is as simple as you can get.
“Since I run all my windows maximized (being half-blind is a bitch .. I need my windows BIG), I don’t have any desktop space to click on.”
I bind the idiot key (the one with the flying window on it) to the root menu. This way I don’t need any empty desktop space to activate the root menu.
“And my middle mouse button is configured to maximize windows, so that would be pretty useless too.”
Unless you like some weird FVWM function like “middle click drag upward” bound to maximize, then you won’t have a problem with managing tab groups. I don’t use the author’s middle click thing to switch workspaces. I have ctrl-alt-left/right to switch workspaces and ctrl-alt-up/down to scroll through tabs in the focused window.
>> If a window manager forces me to hack config files in
>> order to make it suitable for my tastes, I probably
>> won’t use it
How is it different to fire up the control center in Gnome/KDE than editing a text file? I refuse to accept the fact that editing a text file qualifies as “hacking” to anyone.
I use fluxbox on my dual opteron workstation, not because I’m limited in resources, but because it just gets out of my way and allows me to get work done.
[quote]
How is it different to fire up the control center in Gnome/KDE than editing a text file? I refuse to accept the fact that editing a text file qualifies as “hacking” to anyone. [/quote]
Generally speaking (not limiting this discussion to Fluxbox), it depends on several things:
1. How many config files are there? If there’s only 1, I can probably deal with it. If there’s like 15, that’s asking too much.
2. How well is the config file laid out? Are all the options presented to me, or are there like 20 different options for a single setting with only 3 of them described? This is where a drop down list box comes in handy.
3. How soon do the changes take effect? Can I press a hotkey that refreshes the options immediately (like clicking ‘Apply’ in a dialog box), or do I have to restart the whole damn thing every time I go in there and change one single option?
There are other aspects to this as well. For example, how do you make picking a desktop background intuitive in a text config file? With a GUI, I can click on images in a list and view a quick thumbnail image to determine if I like it, and then just click OK when I’ve found the one I want, which brings me to another point …
In a dialog, I don’t have to worry about if I type the name in wrong if I’m picking it from a list or choosing from a file dialog. While choosing from options by clicking checkboxes on/off, selecting radio buttons, etc, I don’t have to concern myself if I make a typo, or if I accidentally commented/uncommented the wrong line. If a text file wants me to tell it what color I want the buttons, will it know what the hell I’m talking about if I type in ‘magenta’, or worse yet, do I have to type in an RGB value with no visual aid?
Anwyay, you get my point.
That review is ridiculously out of date.
The Fluxbox 0.9x series is now considered the stable series. 0.1.14 is no longer maintained, nor will it even compile.
If you try to get help for 0.1.14, even the developers of fluxbox will tell you to upgrade to 0.9x
If you are looking for something to provide some more practical and useful information for fluxbox, try the FAQ here:
http://iphitus.loudas.com/fluxbox.php
I have always felt the *box’s are too anti-intuitive for me.I mean if it was the first computer i had ever used it wouldn’t matter, but it really doesnt feel natural to use a WM the way they want you to.
Yeah, it’s not really GTK or Qt that’s slow (although FLTK or EWL would be quicker). It’s mainly the huge memory footprint and all the config/lock file I/O that comes along with GNOME or KDE. Start Evolution on GNOME and see how many files get read before the application actually starts. None of that happens with fluxbox.
However, that doesn’t get fluxbox off the hook completely. It still incurs a massive overhead in pure window management torture tests such as “create and close as many empty windows as possible in 60 seconds.” FVWM, sawfish, metacity, and especially Enlightenment rule in such tests.
I concur. According to the test below, Fluxbox is not so great at spawning multiple windows…but I’ve tried Fluxbox for a few months myself and it seems (to me at least) that GNOME and KDE both “feel” slower at generating multiple windows than Fluxbox. How weird.
In any case, I’m now using Openbox, as it’s the fastest Window Manager on my particular setup. YMMV. 😉
Test:
http://img387.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e17numbers6eh.png
Credit:
http://madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=4966
I concur. According to the test below, Fluxbox is not so great at spawning multiple windows…but I’ve tried Fluxbox for a few months myself and it seems (to me at least) that GNOME and KDE both “feel” slower at generating multiple windows than Fluxbox. How weird.
Here’s another similar test, FWIW:
http://x2.zuavra.net/index.php/8/
But I have to agree. These tests are syntetic. In real life no user will need to open 100 windows as fast as possible. And while I’m sure there’s some kind of autosuggestion involved too
, window managers in themselves are not what makes a desktop fast or slow. It’s all the other stuff: panels, sound daemons, scrollers, gadgets, you know them.
… FluxBox for 4 years, I like Xfce 4 (and I am looking forward to 4.4), but I always stick to FluxBox. It’s a simple, beautiful, fast, and awesome WM; and if I suddenly feel the need for a desktop with icons, etc. I just use a Rox-Filer ‘pinboard’.
I really love FluxBox. It’s the greatest! ^_^
Those of you, that are interested in fluxbox, there are instructions to get openbox quicklu up and running on openbsd in this site :
http://php.khk.tartu.ee/~alari/?p=6
I used fluxbox before i moned to openbox, ob feels cleaner and smoother.
( and the themes are cooler 😛 )
Sorry, i meant … for those of you, that are interested in openbox.
I’ve tried out many different desktop environments and/or window managers out there, and IMNSHO I’ve found Fluxbox to be quite possibly the world’s perfect window manager.
hi!
does anyone know that how i can change the keyboard language example eng/ger in fluxbox.thanks
Fluxbox is bad for me because every time I have to use other wm’s or platforms I miss it desperately. It’s become a very natural way to work for me. Kudos to the team!
Rasterman tested fluxbox 0.9.12 but fluxbox has been optimized since then. According to the fluxbox web site, 0.9.13 includes “Massive speed- and memory- improvements”.
http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/version-0.9.php
“Oh yeah well YOUR bloated DE is worthless, this is what *really* rocks when it comes to getting actual WORK done!”
I think people should think more about the differences in work we do. If your work requires you to have 14 xterm and emacs windows open and pretty much nothing else, Fluxbox probably has everything you need.
If you’re a graphical designer Mac OS X with Exposé probably gives you more value (just to take an example of the other end of the chart). The regular unix admin probably thinks of the (in comparison) massive GUI and its “effects” as wasted bytes of RAM and cpu cycles, others find that it actually brings a richer and more intuitive work flow. Good thing we’re all allowed to choose.
Good thing we’re all allowed to choose.
Yep, but Fluxbox is a surprisingly lightweight and powerful choice (for a fairly advanced user). I have used Flux for two years know and as a window manager it is way ahead of the competition – the window grouping, keyboard shortcutting, workspace management and root menu truly rocks. Of course, it does not do much else. But throw in your favourite widget/icon apps, in my case some useful dockapps and KDEs Kicker and spend an hour on configuration and you have a great Desktop.
A friend showed off his Mac Expose a couple of days ago. And ok, it looks neat, but the reason it is there is that consistent and organized window management on the Mac is virtually impossible in the first place. So I showed him Fluxbox window grouping. Guess who was the most impressed… 🙂
fluxbox is great in resource efficiency. But I think they should restructure a lot of things because the menu’s, etc look a bit messy. Just compare fluxbox to openbox and see what I mean.
As for my choice of wm, I prefer ion3. wmii and ratpoison are also fun to play with. wmii looks promising..
It’s very good on resources. But I found it annoying to look for empty spot on the desktop to get to the menu very soon and switching desktops with the arrows was rather tedious too.
And resizing windows didn’t work on the top border of a window which I found unacceptable.
And since I couldn’t get any pager working on the latest version of Fluxbox I decided to move to IceWM and found it much more productive and about the same on resources.
One click to switch destktops and no need to look where to click to activete the menu.
And windows can be resized from any side even the top.
Still looking for a pager for IceWM so if anyone knows of one that’s working please let me know.
But overall I’m quite happy with IceWM and don’t think I’d switch although I will try FVWM pretty soon because it’s similar to IceWM but has a few more features from what I read about it.
but, have you ever used hotkeys in fluxbox ? i think no, and because of that you dont know the power of hotkeys.
i find it far faster to set up blackbox (or fluxbox) in a usable way by editing config files. whereas kde and gnome u hav to hunt through pages of endless menus and try and decipher there wording as to whether thats the option u actually want or not. dont even get me started on the worthless menu editor in kde.
basically if u dont mind using plain basic defaults that sumone else thinks is o.k. use kde or gnome. if u want a fast efficient desktop with menus that make sence and the ability to easily customize things, use something else.
How do they compare ? Is fluxbox really better than Openbox or Windowmaker ?
I’m forced to use a 15″/1024×76 monitor at work. WindowMaker, my window manager of choice, couldn’t be scaled down to my liking. Lo and behold, I see this on osnews.com and give it a shot- it works great with my small monitor! I’ve been converted!