What's so great about Fluxbox? IceWM is lighter

[blackbelt_jones]

Okaaaaaay....I still don't understand what you mean. What do you mean by "creativity" as it relates to fluxbox?

I'm about to finish creating my own Live CD Linux distro, based on integrating fluxbox with Konqueror. I just created a simple interface for mounting hard drives. What I love most about the mount menu is that I get to set the mount point myself. Instead of trying to remember /mnt/hda3, I only have to remember /1mp. In fact, because of tab completion, I only have to remember /1.

I created a system of shortcuts that allow me to easily memorize the maximum number of shortcuts, inclding a keyboard shortcut that plays Mozart at Random. I created keyboard shortcuts that use kwrite to open my configuration files, so now I can make a change to my menu, and then close the page two minutes after I opened it.

Fluxbox can be programmed to do anything that the command line can do. Let me say that again.

Fluxbox can be programmed to do anything that the command line can do. In some, this inspires creativity.

[JohnT]

Fluxbox can be programmed to do anything that the command line can do. Let me say that again.

Fluxbox can be programmed to do anything that the command line can do. In some, this inspires creativity.

Inspired...that's the word....let me type that again...Inspired.

[IsaacKuo]

I'm about to finish creating my own Live CD Linux distro, based on integrating fluxbox with Konqueror. I just created a simple interface for mounting hard drives. What I love most about the mount menu is that I get to set the mount point myself. Instead of trying to remember /mnt/hda3, I only have to remember /1mp. In fact, because of tab completion, I only have to remember /1.

I'm sure that's great for your own personal purposes. I don't think other people will find it easier to remember "/1" than "/mnt/hda3" (or more likely, /media/sda3), since the latter will actually tell the user something about which partition it actually is.

Fluxbox can be programmed to do anything that the command line can do. Let me say that again.

That's certainly something fluxbox can do. So can almost EVERY other WM. The only major WM which can't, I think, is the truly primitive twm.

Fluxbox can be programmed to do anything that the command line can do. In some, this inspires creativity.

Thank you for explaining.

[IsaacKuo]

I'd look at a couple things. First and foremost: Am I using any of the swap partition? If not, it doesn't matter.

Open up firefox on a machine with 32megs, and swap WILL be used! But there are just too many variables when opening up firefox to use that as part of the test.

But if I still care about comparing the two WMs (say, so others can know how their RAM usage compared on my machine), I'd do the following:

(0) Configure both WMs to use the same background and same menu structure, since both of these will be loaded into memory. There are probably other things that will be loaded into memory as well, but I'm not thinking of them at the moment. But configure both WMs the same, as much as possible.

(1) Edit my .xinitrc to start up the first WM, then restart. Then startx.

(2) Run free, and look at both the +/- row and the swap usage row.

(3) Edit .xinitrc (after running free, so it doesn't affect the memory usage) to run the other WM, and then restart again. Then startx again.

(4) Run free, and look at both the +/- row and the swap usage row.

The WM which is using more swap loses. If they're really close (not necessarily equal, but within a few K), then the WM which is using more RAM loses.

That's more or less the test I used, with the slight twist that I opened up one aterm to run "free -k". In no cases was swap used.

[blackbelt_jones]

I'm sure that's great for your own personal purposes. I don't think other people will find it easier to remember "/1" than "/mnt/hda3" (or more likely, /media/sda3), since the latter will actually tell the user something about which partition it actually is.

NO, it doesn't!


"/media/sda3" doesn't say anything about "which partition it actually is". Both methods tell exactly the same thing, how to get to the partition. Mine just happens to be a shorter route.

There are always going to be times when a fixed and predetermined mount point is necessary. Applications and scripts have to enter by the usual means. The way this is set up, I use this to mount my hard drives immediately before I manually access them. I check the storage media window in Konqueror to see which drive I want, and then I mount it directly from the main menu. I've got it set up so that Konqueror then opens the window automatically, and I go in graphically, so I can see immediately whether the drive was mounted or not, or maybe I open a terminal window. I use the two mount points alternately between seven and eight partitions on three or more drives. /1mp is not the same partition every time, but I have no trouble remembering which partition it is,because I just mounted it two seconds ago.
You really hit on why I've found this to be such a blessing. /mnt/hda3 is Knoppix. /media/sda3 is Ubuntu. Being able to port this homemade "application" has made working back and forth between the two a lot less annoying.

On the other hand, I still consider this to be experimental, and I'm not going to release it with Kickbox1. I'm not yet convinced that there are no unforeseen security risks. Many of my favorite fluxbox hacks depend on the abillity to use sudo without a password. Some people say that is like running as root. I don't think that's true at all, but it doesn't mean that there is no risk whatsoever.

Anyway we were talking about creativity. Not every solution that we come up with for ourselves is going to apply to the rest of the world, but creativity is always an intergral part of the process with 'nix. And that's not just with fluxbox. Its why people have more fun with our OS than with their OS, and I'm sure that applies to every interface and every distribution of every 'nix.

[blackbelt_jones]

I'm sure that's great for your own personal purposes. I don't think other people will find it easier to remember "/1" than "/mnt/hda3" (or more likely, /media/sda3), since the latter will actually tell the user something about which partition it actually is.

NO, it doesn't!


"/media/sda3" doesn't say anything about "which partition it actually is". Both methods tell exactly the same thing, how to get to the partition. Mine just happens to be a shorter route.


The more traditional method describes a path that is more permanent, though less so than it used to be, at a time when flash drives and external hard drives are becoming more prevalent. There are always going to be times when a fixed and predetermined mount point is necessary. The way this is set up, I use this to mount my hard drives immediately before I manually access them, directly from the main menu. I check the storage media window in Konqueror to see which drive I want, and then I mount it, from the main menu. I've got it set up so Konqueror then opens the window automatically, and I go in graphically, or maybe I open a terminal window. I use the two mount points alternately between seven and eight partitions on three or more drives. /1mp is not the same partition every time, but I have no trouble remembering which partition it is,because I just mounted it two seconds ago. Applications and scripts have to enter by the usual means.

You really hit on a big reason why I've found this to be such a blessing. /mnt/hda3 is Knoppix/Slackware. /media/sda3 is Debian/Ubuntu. Being able to port this homemade "application" has made working back and forth between the two a lot less annoying.

I consider this feature to be experimental, and it won't be released with Kickbox1. I am not yet convinced that there aren't unforeseen security issues.


Damn, I posted this twice, with different changes. Guess I'll just leave it, no time to reeditboth versions together. Sorry. So much for Papal infallibility!

[blackbelt_jones]

Issac, if you want me to take another look at Ice Wm, just tell me where the text is kept.

I'll glady check it out, but don't expect me to switch Window managers. while I'm working on my own fluxbox-based distro. I'm sort of like the Pope of Fluxbox. You can always get the pope to come to your synagogue, but don't expect him to consent to being circumscised anytime soon*.

*Warning. The preceding analogy is inteded to be humorous. Interpret with caution.

[bwkaz]

The only major WM which can't, I think, is the truly primitive twm.

Primitive? PRIMITIVE? You're going to call my favorite window manager PRIMITIVE?



(OK, OK, it's only my favorite because it installs -- or used to install -- with X. Since I compile from source, manually, it's nice to avoid having to compile qt plus sixteen KDE packages to get KDE, or gtk plus 100 different GNOME packages to get GNOME. I bet IceWM or Fluxbox would be quite a bit easier, I just never really tried either of them.)

But anyway, moving right along. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "being programmed to do anything the command line can do", but I'm assuming it means you can hook any command line up to either the menu or a keyboard shortcut or something like that? If not, ignore this, but if so, read on...

You can get twm to run any command line on either a menu entry or (...I think anyway) a keypress, by editing its config file. The Menu section creates a menu and gives it a name (that name is referred to by the f.menu "command", which brings up that menu -- keystrokes or mouse buttons can be programmed to use f.menu). Each line in the Menu section is a menu entry, so you can create a line, and have it use f.exec with a single string argument (whatever shell command line you want it to execute).

The system twm config file is /etc/X11/twm/system.twmrc, and users' twm config files are at ~/.twmrc (though I'm not sure if a ~/.twmrc completely overrides the system one or not; I think it does, so if you create one, copy the system one over first).

[IsaacKuo]

Clearly, I need to try out twm in more depth.

(It could actually be useful for me if I want to use hardware that has too little RAM for even icewm-lite.)

Issac, if you want me to take another look at Ice Wm, just tell me where the text is kept.

You put your files in ~/.icewm/. You can either manually create this directory, or it will be automatically created the first time you select a different theme (like fluxbox, you can switch themes on the fly via the main menu).

You can find examples of the configuration files in /usr/share/icewm/. The ones you'll be most interested in are "preferences", "menu", "keys", and "toolbar". Copy these from /usr/share/icewm/ to ~/.icewm/, and then edit those copies to your heart's desire.

The default files are in /etc/X11/icewm/. Don't edit these. The most important file here is /etc/X11/icewm/programs. This is the file which Debian's "menu" package automagically updates with all installed software. (It is missing in Ubuntu.)

[IsaacKuo]

Okay, I spoke too soon. Icewm-lite is actually as lightweight as twm. Using free-k, twm+aterm used up 14,120k. Icewm-lite+aterm came in a hair lighter at 14,090k. That's a difference of just 30k--less than 1%. That's never going to make a practical difference.

So I'll stick with icewm-lite if I need to install X on a machine with less than 24megs of RAM.

[gamblor01]

So I'll stick with icewm-lite if I need to install X on a machine with less than 24megs of RAM.

Yikes! I haven't had a machine like that since our Pentium 133 with 16MB of RAM that we bought in 1995. Even our IBM Aptiva (bought in 1998) had 64MB of RAM (and a "beefy" AMD K6-2 @ 350 MHz!!! I later upgraded this to 128MB of RAM and a Voodoo3...best video card EVER!). So it's probably fair to say I haven't even seen a machine like that in my house in 10 years. Glad to hear someone still gets use out of them though.

[blackbelt_jones]

Issac, I think I'm very close to releasing my live CD. If you're really wondering about what's great about fluxbox, that's the the question I'm attempting to answer with this project. I invite you to check iit out.... and let me add that nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you were to respond by producing an ice wm CD. Once I master the Knoppix remaster, I would be in a position to spare you the worst part of the process, assuming that you don't already know how to do custom Kx.

The world needs more Live CDs-- but it probably doesn't need any more KDE live CDs.

[blackbelt_jones]

These Window managers must have capabilities beyond what's obvious, or they'd all be deader than fried chicken by now. Because they are so flexible and configurable, it makes sense for them to be packed in the bigger distros in their most generic form. A live CD could be the chance to demonstrate to people what these bad boys can do.

I don't know if I ever got through, but I've been saying again and again that I have little doubt that ICEWM is everything Issac says it is-- but if it's going to take me the same five years it took me to grasp fluxbox, I'm not all that interested, not when Fluxbox is making near-miracles possible for me. An ICEWM live CD distro could shave four years off that time, especially if it emphasized education and transparency as an essential part of its philosphy.

[kagashe]

Hi,

I am newcomer to this forum but not Linux. I have read this entire thread and would like you to compare these WMs on parameters other than RAM.

There is nice comparison on urukrama's blog here.

Features not available on IceWM
Support for dockapps
Native (fake) transparency
Dynamic menus
Additional custom menus
Grouping/Tabbing of windows
Chainable keygrabber

Features not available in Fluxbox
Alt-tab dialog
Minimize window to tray
Tiling
Per-app settings only grouping
Confirm logout

kagashe

[blackbelt_jones]

Interesting info, but the link appears to be dead.

I have to confess, I still don't know what dockapps are. I have an idea what "dynamic menus" might mean, ditto with "additional custom menus." These things are really important to me, but they might not be to somebody else.