SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
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.
I'm using KDE 4.3.3 in current, and whilst it is stable it still feels a bit sluggish, especially with 3D applications such as foobillard, in fact I have to turn down the graphic options.
So I had another look at lightweight desktops. This time it was LXDE, downloaded from Alien Bob's package site, and openbox. It loaded fast, really fast, and seemed to work quite well. Then I noticed an option in the session chooser of KDM "KDE/OpenBox", so I tried it.
KDE still takes about 10 seconds to launch, BUT, it is not sluggish, 3D apps running properly.
I wonder if it is just me, or if it would be best to run KDE with OpenBox.
Some time ago I also discovered Openbox. At that time I liked it very much, because it was fast and lightweight, easier to configure than Fluxbox and FVWM2 (at that time, at least) and had no unwished dependencies (GTK or something). Recently I gave it a shot again, this time with KDE, and it was a good experience, again. Stable and fast.
I just wonder: What does the KDE window manager do, that Openbox does not?
In other words: What reasons are there, to stick with the default, instead of replacing it with Openbox?
Does any know about the technical differences, and can provide a quick summary?
So far it seems to me that Openbox can be configured to do just about everything that the KDE default window manager can do...
Or are the incompatibilities to be expected, e. g., with Plasmoids or something?