Linux - DesktopThis forum is for the discussion of all Linux Software used in a desktop context.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Hi, I would like to open this thread about sharing user feedbacks on the subject of Openbox and Blackbox Window Managers. Which one do you prefer, which advantages / disadvn. would you give about them?
Openbox uses more memory than Blackbox.
Openbox is very nice and efficient.
However, based from official WM's dependency list, Blackbox is fine: https://pastebin.com/raw/Jy0tznpC
So far, both are comparable.
THANKS And Best Regards,
Pat'
Last edited by patrick295767; 12-14-2017 at 02:25 PM.
Blackbox has worked well for me but bbkeys has some issues from time to time. I am a heavy keyboard user and if bbkeys isn't working, I'm stuck. Every once in a while it will just go unresponsive for a short time and then "wake up". No clue why. Switched to fluxbox and never looked back.
Can someone explain why xml is bad for a configuration? It's just a text file format - why would this be undesirable for a configuration file? I get that it was not originally designed for configuration but not sure why this is an issue.
OpenBox, because more than one other person uses it: I like themes and configs that people make and share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevendogsbsd
Blackbox has worked well for me but bbkeys has some issues from time to time. I am a heavy keyboard user and if bbkeys isn't working, I'm stuck. Every once in a while it will just go unresponsive for a short time and then "wake up". No clue why. Switched to fluxbox and never looked back.
Can someone explain why xml is bad for a configuration? It's just a text file format - why would this be undesirable for a configuration file? I get that it was not originally designed for configuration but not sure why this is an issue.
You nailed it: it's just not that great for configuration. I'd be willing to bet that the choice to use XML had more to do with the fact that it was more convenient to use a library for a known format, even if not the best fit, instead of a bespoke design. In practice it's not a fatal issue.
When Blackbox first came out I used it a lot. Then when Blackbox changed to use bbkeys, it caused people to fork it to create Fluxbox. IIRC that was due to the memory requirements of bbkeys. There were a few flame fests about the change in USENET.
I stayed with BB it because I liked bbkeys and there was something with Fluxbox I did not care for at the time.
Fluxbox improved quickly and BB development was stopped. These days and for quite a while, Fluxbox does everything BB did plus it has some additional functionality.
So the point of all this, if you use BB you will probably not notice any difference if you switch to Fluxbox. I think Fluxbox can still use your old BB style files.
^ fluxbox also provides the environment with a "BLACKBOX_PID" variable or some such
i used blackbox on windows xp just before i started using linux.
it was good, and had a lot of functionality.
the menu was essentially a filemanager too, and in the eyes of the hardcore users you weren't one of them when you still used explorer
When Blackbox first came out I used it a lot. Then when Blackbox changed to use bbkeys, it caused people to fork it to create Fluxbox. IIRC that was due to the memory requirements of bbkeys. There were a few flame fests about the change in USENET.
I stayed with BB it because I liked bbkeys and there was something with Fluxbox I did not care for at the time.
Fluxbox improved quickly and BB development was stopped. These days and for quite a while, Fluxbox does everything BB did plus it has some additional functionality.
So the point of all this, if you use BB you will probably not notice any difference if you switch to Fluxbox. I think Fluxbox can still use your old BB style files.
John
BB has the smallest memory usage. It takes even much less resource than Openbox, which is of major importance.
Last edited by patrick295767; 12-21-2017 at 12:26 AM.
If you have a small amount of ram. All of the "box" window managers are efficient with respect to ram.
The problem with RAM is that cheap notebook PC's are usually getting slow, during web browsing. If one keep it very slight in terms of memory, it is possible to increase machine efficiency.
A slight WM is good, i.e. as you call "box", to save memory.
Example: Case of a Raspberry, it is particularly important. KDE runs on it relatively slow, once any web browser is started.
Last edited by patrick295767; 12-21-2017 at 11:33 AM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.