What's so great about Fluxbox? IceWM is lighter

[IsaacKuo]

I've been playing with Debian 4.0 on an old Toshiba Libretto 70CT with 32megs of RAM. As such, RAM is very tight!

I've long been a fan of IceWM, as one of the most functional lightweight window managers. But testing things out...it seems that IceWM is also the lightest/fastest.

Here is the RAM usage according to "free -k". For testing, I opened one aterm window and ran "free -k". The RAM usage was:
console 6,472k (before startx, no aterm)

icewm-lite 12,708k
icewm 13,144k
jwm 13,552k
icewm+bg 14,188k (icewm plus icewmbg)
fluxbox 15,100k
Even with a RAM hogging desktop background, IceWM consumed nearly a meg less RAM than fluxbox. It was also generally faster in responsiveness all around (120mhz Pentium processor).

I used IceCrack2 as the IceWM theme (maybe not the lightest, but my favorite theme). For Fluxbox, I used the "Minimal" style. Other Fluxbox styles consumed even more RAM.

I was surprised that jwm also consumes more RAM than IceWM, and jwm has some annoying functionality limitations.

So what's so great about fluxbox? I notice fluxbox seems a bit sluggish compared to IceWM even on my fast computers. IceWM doesn't have tabbed windows, but frankly I don't find tabbed windows all that useful when I have workspaces.

[blackbelt_jones]

You're just trying to get a rise out of me aren't you? You're just hoping I'll take the bait. :mad:

I'm going to take the bait.;)

I know I tried Ice WM once, but I can't remember much about it. So I'm not going to say categorically that Fluxbox is better. Maybe it's not the greatest, but since you asked, what's so great about fluxbox isn't lightness. It's text. Everything about Fluxbox is configured by text files. They are light, portable, easy to manage. You easily port the test files from computer to computer, from install to install, from distro to distro. Do this:

cp -r .fluxbox ~

And everything you had set up on your old computer is now set up on your new computer. You've got the same menu, the same themes, keyboard shortcuts, provided by you for you. There's no menu more intuitive than the one you design yourself.

Text means you can use search and replace to speed up changes. If you want to switch applications. (Firefox started to crash on me, I wanted to switch to sea monkey. I changed every instance of firefox in the menu and the keys to seamonkey, all at once. My favorite theme is "kickbox transparent" which i created by taking someone else's menu and switching all the colors around. It took maybe three minutes, and I'm not kidding.

[stiles]

Marko should get a lot of credit for icewm, 9 years and icewm has never been without a developer/maintainer and it's been useful when I started using it in 2000.

free isn't the best way to measure memory usage though. Try checking the process table. I forget how X / window managers work together, is the WM a child process of the x server. I'd guess you need to sum the x server, x client, the WM and any child process of the WM

[stiles]

Maybe it's not the greatest, but since you asked, what's so great about fluxbox isn't lightness. It's text. Everything about Fluxbox is configured by text files. They are light, portable, easy to manage. You easily port the test files from computer to computer, from install to install, from distro to distro. Do this:


That's very basic Unix philosophy stuff, :cough: store data is flat text files :cough: it's also not unique to fluxbox

[Calipso]

heh, as soon as I saw this title I thought to my self "uh oh, this is going to get blackbelt foaming at the mouth" :p

[blackbelt_jones]

heh, as soon as I saw this title I thought to my self "uh oh, this is going to get blackbelt foaming at the mouth" :p

For the record, I'm not only fine, I'm grateful to IssacKuo for the information, and I intend to give IceWM another look. As a big fan of legacy hardware (I get a kick out of the fact that my computer cost me 70 bucks.) there are times when I want the lightest WM possible.

As I said at the beginning, I may be Frantic for Flubox, but that doesn't preclude that there could be something better. Only someone who has throroughly tested every Window Manager can make that call, and in these matters I am just a big fat fifty year-old caffeine addicted baby.

That's very basic Unix philosophy stuff, :cough: store data is flat text files :cough: it's also not unique to fluxbox

What's special is the level of transparency. Text isn't just storage, it's the interface for configuring. That may not be unique, but it's great. Tell me about something else that uses text for the interface, and I won't feel like you scored points over me. I'll feel greatful for information that I'd like to have. Fluxbox devotees are fond of posting their text files in their blogs. The medium of text fits wonderfully with Fluxbox's simple, natural "table of contents" structure.

I have to get ready for church. I'll edit the above stream of semi-consciousness later.

[IsaacKuo]

free isn't the best way to measure memory usage though. Try checking the process table. I forget how X / window managers work together, is the WM a child process of the x server. I'd guess you need to sum the x server, x client, the WM and any child process of the WM
That's the thing--I looked at "ps -aux" and thought...heck, I don't know all of which processes I need to sum up.

So I used a test which I sort of had some confidence about reading.

[IsaacKuo]

What's special is the level of transparency. Text isn't just storage, it's the interface for configuring. That may not be unique, but it's great.
Most traditional Unix style programs use well commented text configuration files exactly like this. This includes IceWM. The traditional way is to have LOTS of human readable comments and examples within the configuration file itself (marked by "#" at the start of a line).

Unfortunately, there's a new trend of using non-helpful barely commented xml instead of traditional commented text files. This is exemplified by GNOME and jwm. The xml configuration files barely has any comments at all, so you have to read outside documentation just to get anything done.

Frankly, even if jwm were lighter than IceWM, I probably wouldn't use it just because its xml configuration file offends my sensibilities.

[IsaacKuo]

BTW, there are some GUI tools for editing IceWM preferences/menus, but I never use them; I never even install them. I prefer simply editing the text config files directly. The GUI tools just get in the way.

[blackbelt_jones]

This is like the man who loves his wife so much that he comes up to guys on the street and says "Your wife isn't so great! What's so great about your wife?":)

Maybe your wife has a nice slender figure. That's very nice, but maybe my wife likes to make love in every position imaginable. Still you've got me thinking about maybe having a brief fling with your wife.

[stiles]

That's the thing--I looked at "ps -aux" and thought...heck, I don't know all of which processes I need to sum up.


I hear ya, add the -f flag and that should help :) (I always forget about the forest option it's unique to the gnu ps)

[stiles]

What's special is the level of transparency. Text isn't just storage, it's the interface for configuring. That may not be unique, but it's great. Tell me about something else that uses text for the interface, and I won't feel like you scored points over me. I'll feel greatful for information that I'd like to have. Fluxbox devotees are fond of posting their text files in their blogs. The medium of text fits wonderfully with Fluxbox's simple, natural "table of contents" structure.


Just some free advice, quit thinking everything is a competition, I have no intention of scoring points over you or whatever, I was just pointing out something that was obvious to me.

From a developer's perspective config files is storage of configuration data for their program. Yes it's great and it's been the norm in the Unix world from the get go, yep all the way back to the 70's. It would be far easier to list the Unix programs that do not use ascii text files for configuration than list the ones that do. Just browse though /etc and tell me how many non-text config files you find.

[blackbelt_jones]

Just some free advice, quit thinking everything is a competition, I have no intention of scoring points over you or whatever, I was just pointing out something that was obvious to me.

What?

Doesn't the very passage that you quote make it explicit that I don't consider it a competition? Indeed, I tried to make the point more than once, because of the title of the thread, (which I'm sure IssacKuo never meant to be taken very seriously) Did you think I protested too much?

From a developer's perspective config files is storage of configuration data for their program. Yes it's great and it's been the norm in the Unix world from the get go, yep all the way back to the 70's. It would be far easier to list the Unix programs that do not use ascii text files for configuration than list the ones that do. Just browse though /etc and tell me how many non-text config files you find.

I don't think the perspective of the developer is very relevant to this conversation. The fluxbox text files aren't in /etc, they're in ~. You don't need root access to edit them. I don't know much about ice wm, twm, fvwm, etc , but that's a vast difference in transparency from gnome, kde, and xfce. In fluxbox, editing a text file is the default interface for configuration, and the normal user has access. That's a real difference in how the user interacts with the data (from kde, gnome, and xfce, anyway) Where and how the data is stored is a completely different issue.

[bwkaz]

free isn't the best way to measure memory usage though. Why not? (Assuming you look at the "+/- buffers/cache" line, not the "Mem" line. The "Mem" line will include the kernel's various caches as "using memory", even though those are generally the first things to give their memory up when any more is needed.)

Try checking the process table. Hmm I'm not sure that's a great idea. If you check the process table, but processes are sharing memory (like, for instance, what happens when your window manager and the X server share the pixmap used for the background!), you'll count that memory twice. free only counts that memory once. Which is correct -- it's only taking up one set of pages in physical RAM; those pages are simply mapped into both process's virtual address space.

Plus, when you check the process table, you'll see X using bunches of memory that it isn't really using, because it's just mapped video memory off the graphics card (though this may depend on your video driver). It still shows up as "used", because it's taking up virtual address space in the X server (and physical address ranges off the CPU), but it isn't backed by physical RAM, so it shouldn't be counted. free also skips this non-physical-RAM virtual address space, since it only cares about physical RAM usage.

is the WM a child process of the x server. Both are child processes of xinit (it starts the server, then starts the "main" client -- generally ~/.xinitrc -- then waits for either to exit, at which point it shuts down the other one), at least when you use startx. (I think something similar happens when you use a display manager, but I don't know the details.) But it doesn't matter which is a child of which if you just count all physical RAM that's in use. :)

I'd guess you need to sum the x server, x client, the WM and any child process of the WM See above; you'll count some memory twice between X clients (which includes both the window manager and other, "normal" programs) and the X server. The "XShm" extension lets them share memory as long as they're on the same physical machine; this is much faster than transferring huge pixmaps over a network connection (which is how X clients and servers are normally connected).

Even if the connection is over localhost (DISPLAY=localhost:0.0), or a Unix-domain socket at /tmp/.X11-unix/X0 (DISPLAY=:0.0), you're still copying data around between physical memory pages. This is much faster than sending it over the network -- but if you share the pages directly, no copying is required at all, which is even faster. :)

Tell me about something else that uses text for the interface sshd? cron? Configuring the X server (/etc/X11/xorg.conf)? ;)

[stiles]

Why not?

Cause I want to know what the applications memory usage is not the systems - buffer cache / cache. Yes X has many gotchas that you pointed out, but so does using global memory usage, such as other applications having application level caching. And as you pointed out anything that is paged is not displayed, I want to know what this is if it's related to the application that I want to know the footprint of.

OK this begs the question how would you figure out the memory footprint of a WM?

[stiles]

Did you think I protested too much?

Well I'd say your thin skinned, I mean come on you would make some really off statement about you "....feel like you scored points over me." because I point out that text based configuration files are the norm. Ohh and you compare software to a wife, that's just nuts.



I don't think the perspective of the developer is very relevant to this conversation.

Who makes the choice what files store configuration in fluxbox, or where they are stored or what format they are stored in, yep the developers do.

The fluxbox text files aren't in /etc, they're in ~. You don't need root access to edit them.

And your point is? You asked for examples of OTHER programs that use text based configuration files and I directed you to /etc, take your pick, list /etc and close your eyes and point and you have a text based config file for a unix program.

BTW what is the /etc/X11/fluxbox directory for? Global dotfiles for fluxbox maybe?


Where and how the data is[I] stored is a completely different issue.

OK then why did you say this:

Maybe it's not the greatest, but since you asked, what's so great about fluxbox isn't lightness. It's text. Everything about Fluxbox is configured by text files. They are light, portable, easy to manage.

Text is how the configuration data is stored, nuff said.

[blackbelt_jones]

You've taken comments that were directed toward Issackuo as if they were directed toward you, and apparently taken offense. You've taken an analogy that was intended as outlandish and ridiclous ( a way of saying that this isn't really a serious argument, it's all in fun) as if it was dead serious. You've taken statements about how this isn't a competition between two window managers and interpreted them to be the exact opposite of what I said. I think it's fair to say that you don't get me.

I don't know what's going on here. I suspect that you're not a native English speaker, but I may have some share of the responsibility for the confusion, between my love of rhetorical flourishes, and futive postings on a busy holiday weekend. Whatever it is. I assure you, it's just an innocent misunderstanding, and it's not worth another minute of my time or yours.

Well, maybe one minute. Please read what I said one more time:

Tell me about something else that uses text for the interface, and I won't feel like you scored points over me. I'll feel grateful for information that I'd like to have.

[blackbelt_jones]

Fluxbox=Desktop Environment
ICEWM=Window Manager

Actually, I don't think that's true, but I could be wrong. I think they're both Window managers.
The difference (I think) is that Desktop environment have a "desktop"-- a default screen that is actually a directory, where files and icons can be store freely, for ready use. When I am using Fluxbox, I use Konqueror as the desktop. There is a desktop environment based on Fluxbox called fb desktop.

http://www.myl.ro/forum/index.php?act=gal&code=10&img=312&ext=jpg

[Calipso]

Fluxbox = WM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxbox

=====
close your eyes and point
Just make sure you don't have a drink on your desk. Could really ruin your keyboard :D ;) :p

[IsaacKuo]

I don't know what's going on here. I suspect that you're not a native English speaker, but I may have some share of the responsibility for the confusion, between my love of rhetorical flourishes, and futive postings on a busy holiday weekend.
Speaking as a native English speaker, I thought stiles had read your words and attitude correctly.

But who really cares?

As it is, I actually WAS serious about my question. Regardless of why you, blackbelt_jones, like fluxbox so much, the fact is that fluxbox is extremely popular. I really don't know why, and I really would like to know why. A LOT of people like fluxbox. I really wonder what's so great about it.

I've tried fluxbox every once in a while, and I never had a positive impression. Tabbed windows sounded like a cool idea but it never really seemed useful in practice. Fluxbox felt sluggish to me compared to IceWM, so I always went back to IceWM.

Obviously fluxbox's use of a well commented text configuration files isn't the reason. Almost all *nix software uses these text configuration files, as has been noted by everyone else. This includes IceWM. Unfortunately, some *nix software has decided to go with barely commented xml instead of traditional well commented text files. Theoretically, going from flat text files to xml shouldn't be a problem--except that so far it has also meant eliminating the helpful comments.

Is it the tabbed windows? Of all of the tabbed window managers, I think fluxbox is the most popular.

Or is it that IceWM is too much like Windows 95 in layout? I find the Windows-like layout to be very pleasant to use. I particularly like having workspace buttons (a feature which doesn't exist in Windows, but exists in KDE, GNOME, and most other Linux desktop environments). In contrast, fluxbox has arrow buttons. Fluxbox just plain does things in a different way.

Do people who like fluxbox purposefully avoid IceWM simply because it's more like Windows? For me, I wouldn't mind an outright Windows clone (plus workspace buttons), if it happened to be the most efficient way for me to get things done. That's sort of what IceWM is, although it tends to be better all around.

[blackbelt_jones]

Speaking as a native English speaker, I thought stiles had read your words and attitude correctly.


What, seriously?:confused:

You thought that this sounded competetive?

Tell me about something else that uses text for the interface, and I won't feel like you scored points over me. I'll feel grateful for information that I'd like to have.


I couldn't have been the words that I used, or what those words mean. These things explicitly say "I do not feel competetive about this. I am open to new information on the subject."

Okay, so who turned up the geek in here? :rolleyes: I have to tell you guys, I don't feel like I'm the competetive one, and I don't feel like I'm the one who's thin skinned. It's almost seems like you guys resent me for being one of the .01 percent of the population who uses Fluxbox, and therefore I'm some kind of sellout. I'm the stuck-up popular kid. You guys, the .00001 percent of the population that uses whatever the **** it is you are going on about, you're like the goth kids, tossing back your hair and going on and on about "conformists".

I tried Ice WM this morning, because you had me interested, and oh GOD HOW I HATED IT! Not because it was like WIndows 95, but because it was like being Winston Smith in Room 101, with a cage full of rats on my head. All I remember is that it was ugly and awkward, and the metallic 3D buttons reminded me of a 1970s stereo receiver. I was out of there in two minutes. Obviously, I'm not going to get a fair picture of ice wm in two minutes. I know that with time, I might get used to it. I might even learn to love it. But that is never going to happen. Never ever.

I don't know why you want to use Ice Wm, but I'm sure you have a perfectly valid reason that works for you, and I respect that completely, but it seems kind of odd... actually, I find it quite funny... that you're looking for an explanation why other people aren't interested in Ice Wm. You might as well wonder why I'm not having a heaping bowl of anchovies for breakast tomorrow.

I hope that was helpful. :)

[jamesbandido]

whew ... is it getting hot or what ?

but from a newbies (me) point of view, i'm learning a lot from all of you.

fluxbox/ice/wm/de etc are all new to me ...

been introduced to linux (using ubuntu/fedora/opensuse/mandriva) only late last year and i've been learning a lot from peoples experiences through the different forums and tyring them out also on my own ...

the posts so far all point to one ... its a choice ... like we have a choice on what distro we want to use ... its familiarity or ease of usage ...

i hope that the exchanges wont discourage other readers ...

to the admin/mods, sorry if my post is OT but i still the above exchanges healthy to a newb like me ...

cheers to all !!!

[blackbelt_jones]

(Takes a deep breath, smiles.)
I love the smell of napalm.:D

[IsaacKuo]

Try "apt-get install icewm-themes". The default IceWM theme is indeed ugly. I never use it. My favorite theme is IceCrack2, which also turned out to be pretty lightweight. It's the theme I describe using in the very first post.

And yes, blackbelt_jones, you do indeed have a tendency to get defensive. Why? I don't know and I don't care.

Maybe the ugly default theme for IceWM is the only reason why people like fluxbox. A silly reason, perhaps, but it could be that most people can't be bothered to install icewm-themes.

You seem to think that you're an oddity or a minority for using fluxbox. You're not. Fluxbox is VERY popular. Why? I don't know. I thought that maybe you couldn't tell me why, since the only reason you had stated obviously doesn't apply. However, this new theory is more plausible--that IceWM's default theme is ugly. (This is a problem with Enlightenment, and other WMs).

[IsaacKuo]

I don't know why you want to use Ice Wm, but I'm sure you have a perfectly valid reason that works for you,
Funny, since I described the reasons I use IceWM.

It's lightweight (the reason in the subject line).

It's fast (less sluggish then fluxbox).

It has great functionality (has workspace buttons; things like nm-applet work).

It's pretty. (I describe IceCrack2 as my favorite IceWM theme.)

It has a Win95-like layout which I like using.
actually, I find it quite funny... that you're looking for an explanation why other people aren't interested in Ice Wm. You might as well wonder why I'm not having a heaping bowl of anchovies for breakast tomorrow.
No, actually I'm wondering why people like fluxbox.

The only reason you've stated for not liking IceWM is stupid, and lazy, but it actually might be the real reason why fluxbox is so popular. In Debian or Ubuntu, it's really easy to install a zillion icewm themes. However, I can imagine that in other linux distributions with inferior package management systems, it's not so brain-dead easy. IceWM's default theme is indeed ugly, and not everybody can be bothered to figure out how to install other themes.

[JohnT]

Actually, I don't think that's true, but I could be wrong. I think they're both Window managers.
The difference (I think) is that Desktop environment have a "desktop"-- a default screen that is actually a directory, where files and icons can be store freely, for ready use. When I am using Fluxbox, I use Konqueror as the desktop. There is a desktop environment based on Fluxbox called fb desktop.

http://www.myl.ro/forum/index.php?act=gal&code=10&img=312&ext=jpg

Don't be so quick to post.....you will notice that I deleted my post...only moments after submitting.
I felt it left to much open to interpretation by "experts" that it was not worth the digression.;)

Here's what's HOT about IceCrack2
CRACK (http://www.cameronmsmith.com/footsteps/alaska07gallery/pages/icecrack2.htm)

[blackbelt_jones]

Don't be so quick to post.....you will notice that I deleted my post...only moments after submitting.
I felt it left to much open to interpretation by "experts" that it was not worth the digression.;)

Here's what's HOT about IceCrack2
CRACK (http://www.cameronmsmith.com/footsteps/alaska07gallery/pages/icecrack2.htm)


I did notice that, but I just didn't feel like deleting.


Yes, yes, Issac. Ice Wm is very light. very light. You covered that in the thread title.

There's a paradox at work here. The more serious these discussions become, the more ridiculous they become.

It pissed me off when Issac contradicted me. He may be a native speaker of English, but I am the one who knew what he meant. Other than that, I really don't care about this ridiculous discussion. Why do so many people like Fluxbox? I don't maybe they like the fact that it kind of sounds like "****box". Right now I'd rather discuss professional women's bowling than window managers.

[JohnT]

I love Fluxbox....as long as we are on the subject. There is so much creativity in this WM. I have spent hours with it. ICEWM also, but it's not quite what I like. I'm at the age where I don't care about weight in a WM.:D

[Calipso]

Here's what's HOT about IceCrack2
CRACK

And here I thought I was going to see a nice screenshot of the theme. :rolleyes:

[JohnT]

And here I thought I was going to see a nice screenshot of the theme. :rolleyes:
If you look real close just beneath the surface you can see this thread!:p

[blackbelt_jones]

Creativity is a big part of it. I also find it very easy to concentrate with. Sprawling Desktop environments are distracting for me.

Now that I've cooled off, I'd like to invite anyone who is interested in a discussion where you tell me what you love about yor favorite window manager, and I listen respectfully, I tell you about what I love about my favorite window manager and you listen respectuflly, and we both learn something. I lied earlier. I am interested in learning something about ice wm, and I'm kind of disappointed that I didn't. I love fluxbox, but I can't claim that it's the best WM ever. In my heart, I suspect that it is, but I can never really know that without knowing all the software in the world initmately.

When I spoke of wives, the analogy was deliberately whimsical, but I also had a serious point. If your wife has beautiful blue eyes, and you love to see them looking back at you, does it really matter that other women-- and even some men-- have blue eyes? If I tell you everything that I love about fluxbox, it should go without saying that not eveything is going to be exclusive to fluxbox.

[IsaacKuo]

Creativity is a big part of it.
This sounds interesting. What do you mean by "creativity"? I don't understand this answer.
I also find it very easy to concentrate with. Sprawling Desktop environments are distracting for me.
Hehe. I know for a long time you used GNOME. GNOME has a default layout which I absolutely despise. For no reason whatsoever, they decide that it's best to eat up screen real estate in both the top and bottom of the screen! This is a huge hit on screen space, especially if the user doesn't bother figuring out how to increase resolution beyond the default 800x600. The first thing I do in GNOME is remove useless buttons like "Show Desktop" (a feature only needed in Windows, because it lacks workspaces), and shove everything into just one panel.

But all of the lightweight window managers are uncluttered, like fluxbox.

IceWM is legendary in its not-getting-in-the-way'dness. IceWM users report forgetting it's even there, that's how non-distracting it is.
Now that I've cooled off, I'd like to invite anyone who is interested in a discussion where you tell me what you love about yor favorite window manager, and I listen respectfully,
I already told what I like about IceWM a couple times, so I won't repeat myself again.
I am interested in learning something about ice wm, and I'm kind of disappointed that I didn't. I love fluxbox, but I can't claim that it's the best WM ever. In my heart, I suspect that it is, but I can never really know that without knowing all the software in the world initmately.
This is funny, because my assumption tends toward the opposite. I always suspect that there may be something better out there.

In particular, I like using IceWM, but I knew that Damn Small Linux and other lightweight distributions used fluxbox and jwm. So I naturally assumed they were probably lighter than IceWM. If I recall correctly, DSL used to default to IceWM, but now it doesn't even include IceWM.

But now that I've put it to the test, both fluxbox and jwm failed to better IceWM in any way.

Except one way--fluxbox has tabbed windows, while IceWM does not.

Still, the bottom line is that fluxbox is very popular, and I'm left wondering if I haven't missed something. So I asked. And now that I've asked...I think that I did not miss something. My current theory is simply that fluxbox fans are simply insufficiently informed about IceWM.
When I spoke of wives, the analogy was deliberately whimsical, but I also had a serious point. If your wife has beautiful blue eyes, and you love to see them looking back at you, does it really matter that other women-- and even some men-- have blue eyes? If I tell you everything that I love about fluxbox, it should go without saying that not eveything is going to be exclusive to fluxbox.
Sure, but the point seems to be that nothing you love about fluxbox is exclusive to fluxbox, and in fact they seem to be the rule for lightweight window managers.

When something is the rule, rather than the exception, it's easier to list the exceptions. I did that when I pointed out that jwm unfortunately uses non-helpful barely commented xml files instead of well commented flat text files.

It's as if you were waxing poetic about the fact that your wife has five fingers on each hand, or two legs.

Still, I am interested by your "Creativity" comment. I don't even understand what that means.

[IsaacKuo]

I love Fluxbox....as long as we are on the subject. There is so much creativity in this WM.
There's "creativity" again. What does that mean? Do you mean user productivity?

[Calipso]

I'd like to invite anyone who is interested in a discussion where you tell me what you love about yor favorite window manager

WM's are for sissies! Real men use a bare bones X server :cool:

Sure makes working with the gimp a little interesting :D

[gamblor01]

Hehe. I know for a long time you used GNOME. GNOME has a default layout which I absolutely despise. For no reason whatsoever, they decide that it's best to eat up screen real estate in both the top and bottom of the screen! This is a huge hit on screen space, especially if the user doesn't bother figuring out how to increase resolution beyond the default 800x600. The first thing I do in GNOME is remove useless buttons like "Show Desktop" (a feature only needed in Windows, because it lacks workspaces), and shove everything into just one panel.
One thing I think this thread has taught me, is that I should give some other window managers a try. I use gnome, and I really like gnome. Personally I don't agree that having 2 bars uses up a massive amount of real estate. I run at 1280x1024 resolution on a 19" LCD though. I suppose you're correct, at 800x600 it's probably going to be a significant portion of the screen to have 2 bars. Yes, it also comes with some buttons by default that you will never use. Like you said though, it's easy enough to just remove them.

I have tried IceWM in the past and I hated it. However, I feel like I should try it again. Why? Last time I used it was with Slackware 9 I believe. I knew hardly anything about Linux at the time, and I NEEDED a GUI like KDE/gnome to make it usable for me. I knew so little about Linux that even these instructions for installing Java made no sense to me:

$ chmod a+x jdk1.4.2.bin
$ ./jdk1.4.2.bin

It turns out that those instructions DO make perfect sense!

However, I think this ultimately brings me to my point. I often have been asked to explain why I prefer some things over others (or perhaps, why I don't prefer certain things). I can't really explain why I like the color blue better than red. I just do. I don't know if perhaps this same argument may apply to Blackbelt and Fluxbox. Then again, perhaps there is some inherent difference between preferring a color over another and a piece of software over another?

You think that the default gnome layout takes up too much real estate and I don't. I'm not sure we will ever be able to nail down why. Again, me personally I don't think Gnome is "too heavy" for use. I'm running on an Athlon 3800+ with 2GB of RAM and a 7600GT. When I click on things, they open immediately (or at least, fast enough that I cannot tell how long it takes. 200-400ms maybe?). I'm accustomed to gnome, it seems light enough for me, and I guess that's why I use it. I have tried using twm in the past and I couldn't figure out how to get anything done on it! So I guess here are some reasons why I like gnome, but you may or may not agree with them, and as I have said, it's difficult to verbalize why in many cases.

- It's fast (at least, fast enough for everything I do).
- It's the default for many distros...specifically Ubuntu and Fedora which I run most. This makes it easy because I don't have to change configurations.
- It comes with a lot of nice extras such as games, media applications, system config tools, etc. all put into nice little menus for easy access.
- It has a toolbar that I can place my most frequently used icons in (such as firefox, terminal, amarok, etc.).

You may completely disagree with those statements! But I like it, and I'm not sure I can really explain why I like it...I just do. I know Blackbelt has used Fluxbox a significant amount, and this is probably why he likes it so much...it's just what he is used to. Or maybe he likes Fluxbox for some unknown reasons that are difficult to verbalize?

The greatest thing is that we all have the ability to choose our window manager, and then chose it's layout. If one of them works better for you then by all means use it. There's no point is using something that is less efficient for YOU simply because someone else things that their application/WM/whatever is superior. As noted earlier however, I feel like I should give some other WM's a chance after using gnome for a while now. :)

[IsaacKuo]

Like you said though, it's easy enough to just remove them.
Yes. It takes only a minute or two to strip GNOME down to the KDE/Win95 style layout I prefer.
You think that the default gnome layout takes up too much real estate and I don't. I'm not sure we will ever be able to nail down why.
I know my half. The reason I don't like it is because it reduces the usable screen space to below what I'm used to. This is particularly annoying on widescreen monitors (think of how huge those bars are), but less annoying on 5:4 "tall" monitors (1280x1024).
Again, me personally I don't think Gnome is "too heavy" for use. I'm running on an Athlon 3800+ with 2GB of RAM and a 7600GT. When I click on things, they open immediately (or at least, fast enough that I cannot tell how long it takes. 200-400ms maybe?).
On that machine, I doubt you'll find much if any practical difference in performance with IceWM. IceWM will log in faster, but on that computer it's not like logging into GNOME takes very long.

You MIGHT find to your annoyance that fluxbox is a little sluggish. On my 2.5Ghz Northwood system with 256megs of RAM, I actually switched back to KDE from fluxbox because fluxbox felt a little sluggish compared to KDE (this was on Debian 3.1).
- It's fast (at least, fast enough for everything I do).
- It's the default for many distros...specifically Ubuntu and Fedora which I run most. This makes it easy because I don't have to change configurations.
- It comes with a lot of nice extras such as games, media applications, system config tools, etc. all put into nice little menus for easy access.
- It has a toolbar that I can place my most frequently used icons in (such as firefox, terminal, amarok, etc.).
These are the reasons I generally do a default install of Ubuntu or Debian including the default GNOME software suite, even though I will use either KDE or IceWM. In particular, I use GNOME's nm-applet in IceWM. IceWM plays nicely with GNOME apps and applets.

I also like using toolbar icons to launch my favorite applications. This feature is available in IceWM, of course.

Unfortunately, Ubuntu's "menu" package is broken, so I tend to use GNOME instead of IceWM on Ubuntu. Ubuntu's GNOME menu is at least usable (even if it's missing the majority of applications I install). The universal menu in IceWM is simply empty--there are NO applications in the menu other than what I manually add.
As noted earlier however, I feel like I should give some other WM's a chance after using gnome for a while now. :)
I don't know about Fedora, but I find Ubuntu's non-implementation of "menu" to be extremely off-putting. I think it's part of the Ubuntu philosophy, that only GNOME apps should appear in the GNOME menus; that only KDE apps should appear in the KDE menus...and I suppose this means that other DEs and WMs just have to fend for themselves with limited default menus.

This is in contrast to the Debian way, which is to have a single universal "menu" system. That way, all apps are available in the main menu of all DEs and WMs. Apparently, this concept offended the Ubuntu developers, in that users will be confused by having choices of different applications that serve the same basic purpose.

The bottom line is that IceWM in Ubuntu will either force you to manually edit the menu, or you're going to get used to not having most applications in the menu, or you'll do the lazy thing I did--which was to switch back to GNOME.

(Or you'll do the non-lazy thing I did, which was to switch to Debian, and struggle and struggle to get my wireless adapter working.)

[KingJorge]

I'm suprised this link hasn't popped up sooner, espcially considering who started the post in the first place has had an active role in this post.

http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147915

This thread is one of the main reasons I started using Fluxbox and I think it is really informative and relative to this topic.

[IsaacKuo]

I'm suprised this link hasn't popped up sooner, espcially considering who started the post in the first place has had an active role in this post.
BBJ didn't start this thread. I did. And I did not participate in that other thread:
http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147915
Reading through that thread, it basically confirms my "insufficiently informed about IceWM" theory.

There's only one small comment about IceWM, and it's from someone who doesn't like fluxbox either:

"I gave up on Flux a while back mostly cause I prefer not to edit text files
[...]
IceWM just looked like a Win95 clone... lol."

Of course, there are GUI configuration utilities for IceWM, but they're not installed by default. By default, you configure IceWM the same way you configure fluxbox--by editing (well commented) text files.

AFAICT, everything fluxbox can do IceWM can do as well or better. Except for two features--tabbed windows and transparent menus (I think). But tabbed windows doesn't seem to be a heavily used feature of fluxbox; this is not surprising to me since it's not really so useful compared to organizing windows by workspace.

[gamblor01]

Isaac, based on your last response to me it sounds like you agree that on newer systems the performance difference is minimal? It seems like you're saying that the older systems would cause it to be more noticeable (and I'm sure you're right about that).

Also, I haven't really had a problem with widescreen monitors. I run an Ubuntu VM with gnome on my laptop (15" widescreen @ 1440x900) and it doesn't really bother me. Just my opinion though and luckily, if you think it's taking up too much space, at least it gives you the ability to change it. :) Gotta do what works best for YOU though, not what works best for me or others.

I'll have to give some new window managers a shot at some point though.

[IsaacKuo]

Isaac, based on your last response to me it sounds like you agree that on newer systems the performance difference is minimal?
Correct. If you're expecting your GUI to feel a bit zippier, prepare to be underwhelmed.
It seems like you're saying that the older systems would cause it to be more noticeable (and I'm sure you're right about that).
Yes. It's really mostly a RAM issue. There's a certain range of RAM, around 128megs, where a heavyweight like GNOME or KDE feels more sluggish than a lightweight WM.

Then below that, there's a certain range of RAM where GNOME or KDE will just barely load up, if at all. If you've got less than 64megs of RAM, it's not so much a "speed difference" as it is a difference in loading up in the first place.
I'll have to give some new window managers a shot at some point though.
You might find it's fun! Since you won't be concerned with RAM, I don't feel bad suggesting some "heavier" themes. One really cool looking IceWM combo is IceNine (http://www.box-look.org/content/show.php/IceNine?content=61512) IceWM theme along with kore-black (http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=55747&forumpage=1&PHPSESSID=6) gtk theme.

Here's what my ~/.gtkrc-2.0 looks like:
# This file was written by KDE
# You can edit it in the KDE control center, under "GTK Styles and Fonts"

####include "/usr/share/themes/SphereCrystal/gtk-2.0/gtkrc"

style "user-font"
{
font_name="Clean 9"
}
widget_class "*" style "user-font"

gtk-theme-name="kore-black"
gtk-font-name="Clean 9"

[JohnT]

There's "creativity" again. What does that mean? Do you mean user productivity?

creativity- noun The power or ability to invent: creativeness , ingeniousness , ingenuity , invention , inventiveness , originality.

productivity n. The quality of being productive.

No....I did not mean productivity!

[IsaacKuo]

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

[JohnT]

Okaaaaaay....I still don't understand what you mean. What do you mean by "creativity" as it relates to fluxbox?
This is why there are differences of opinion on this subject. Some people are practical about some things others not.....about the same thing.
Creativity as in visual creativity...I'm not interested in the practical usage of a WM as long as it doesn't hog resources I'm fine with it. I want eyecandy and utility in one package......not productivity.;)

[JohnT]

WM's are for sissies! Real men use a bare bones X server :cool:

Sure makes working with the gimp a little interesting :D

Skinning IceCrack2 !!:p

[bwkaz]

OK this begs the question how would you figure out the memory footprint of a WM? I'd look at a couple things. First and foremost: Am I using any of the swap partition? If not, it doesn't matter. :p

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. :)

(This counts all "private" bytes from all processes. Since I'm excluding the kernel caches, it's not counting that; since non-private bytes don't get put into swap (but simply dropped from RAM, to be paged back in from the .so or executable later), counting swap doesn't count them either.)

[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.:D

[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. :p
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!
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1012/disbelief752872kf6.jpg

"/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!
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1012/disbelief752872kf6.jpg

"/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!:rolleyes:

[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*.:D

*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?

:p

(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. (http://urukrama.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/a-comparison-of-four-window-managers/)

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.

[blackbelt_jones]

http://urukrama.wordpress.com/category/other-window-managers/

better link.


I also found a link to something even more interesting called The Window Manager Report (http://urukrama.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/the-window-manager-report/).

Mama mia! It turns out that there are actually more WMs that I haven't heard of than WMs I've heard of!

I maintain that no one could possibly know about all of these, in a current, comprehensive way. It would foolish to believe that fluxbox, or whatever I happen to be using, is and always will be the best possible WM, but it's not foolish to ethusiasitically support your chosen WM, and to help other people learn about it.

[IsaacKuo]

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.
Sure, but I don't think there's really a big practical difference in terms of functionality, overall.
There is nice comparison on urukrama's blog(http://urukrama.wordpress.com/category/other-window-managers/ )
I find it interesting that two of my favorite features aren't even listed--workspace pager and taskbar shortcut icons. Many users use these all the time, whether in IceWM or KDE or GNOME.

I also don't see systray icon support listed (things like volume control and network-manager applet).
Features not available on IceWM
Support for dockapps
Native (fake) transparency
Dynamic menus
Additional custom menus
I wonder what "additional custom menus" means.

I'm not sure what is meant by "dynamic menus". I can only think that it must mean menus which change on the fly even while the menu is open. IceWM menu items can change without reloading IceWM, which is what I'd normally think of as "dynamic menus", but I don't think the menu will change while it's actually open.

Grouping/Tabbing of windows
Yes, tabbed windows would seem to be the main functional feature present in fluxbox that IceWM doesn't have. I don't really find tabbed windows terribly useful, though.

Chainable keygrabber
This sounds like an interesting feature, although I don't really know what it is.

Features not available in Fluxbox
Alt-tab dialog
Minimize window to tray
Tiling
Per-app settings only grouping
Confirm logout
These features are pretty non-exciting, unless you're a big keyboard fan (in which case tiling may be a must).

The workspace pager and taskbar shortcut icons are more important because they are widely used popular productivity enhancing features.

[IsaacKuo]

I also found a link to something even more interesting called The Window Manager Report (http://urukrama.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/the-window-manager-report/).

Mama mia! It turns out that there are actually more WMs that I haven't heard of than WMs I've heard of!

I maintain that no one could possibly know about all of these, in a current, comprehensive way.
Sure, but the majority of those WMs are either dead or mostly dead. For me, one easy requirement that culls out many WMs is that it must be in the Debian repositories. If it's not just an "apt-get" away, then I don't bother with it.

[kagashe]

Sorry for the dead link. It was my first post on this forum and went through Moderator. I could not check it after it appeared on the forum.

@blackbelt_jones
Thanks for tracing the correct link and for discovering the the Window Manager Report.

Coming back to comparison of WMs on the basis of memory usage and assuming the data on this page (http://www.gilesorr.com/wm/memory.html) to be correct.

IceWM looks lighter than Fluxbox on all parameters except no of libraries.

The table also explains the growing popularity of JWM on distributions like DSL and Puppy Linux.

@IsaacKuo
What is your comment on JWM. It is available on Debian. The latest vesrion 2.0.1-1.1 is in Lenny

kagashe

[IsaacKuo]

I found that jwm used a bit more memory than IceWM (with the IceCrack2 theme--memory usage depends on theme). More importantly, taskbar applets like nm-applet didn't work with jwm.

Other than that, my main annoyance with jwm was the uncommented xml configuration file format. Even something as simple as setting autohide required searching around on the Internet to figure out.

[JohnT]

I found that jwm used a bit more memory than IceWM (with the IceCrack2 theme--memory usage depends on theme). More importantly, taskbar applets like nm-applet didn't work with jwm.

Other than that, my main annoyance with jwm was the uncommented xml configuration file format. Even something as simple as setting autohide required searching around on the Internet to figure out.

OK....I think I have it now. Gosh I feel like sucha dope!!! IceWM (with the IceCrack2 theme!!! Why didn't I notice that before.;)

[JohnT]

I'm not sure what is meant by "dynamic menus". I can only think that it must mean menus which change on the fly even while the menu is open. IceWM menu items can change without reloading IceWM, which is what I'd normally think of as "dynamic menus", but I don't think the menu will change while it's actually open.

http://darkshed.net/article/dynamic-menus-in-fluxbox

[blackbelt_jones]

http://darkshed.net/article/dynamic-menus-in-fluxbox

Holy crap!

[IsaacKuo]

Delayed reaction? Anyway, the same thing will work with IceWM (and other WM's, I would expect).

The ability to change the menu on the fly is something I know IceWM is capable of since it's a built in feature of the "menu" package. For example, whenever you use apt-get to add or remove something, it automagically updates the IceWM menu appropriately.

It would be a little more interesting for the menu to dynamically change while it's actually open...but I don't really see the point of such a feature.

[blackbelt_jones]

I already told what I like about IceWM a couple times, so I won't repeat myself again.

This is funny, because my assumption tends toward the opposite. I always suspect that there may be something better out there.

In particular, I like using IceWM, but I knew that Damn Small Linux and other lightweight distributions used fluxbox and jwm. So I naturally assumed they were probably lighter than IceWM. If I recall correctly, DSL used to default to IceWM, but now it doesn't even include IceWM.

But now that I've put it to the test, both fluxbox and jwm failed to better IceWM in any way.

Except one way--fluxbox has tabbed windows, while IceWM does not.

Still, the bottom line is that fluxbox is very popular, and I'm left wondering if I haven't missed something. So I asked. And now that I've asked...I think that I did not miss something. My current theory is simply that fluxbox fans are simply insufficiently informed about IceWM.

Sure, but the point seems to be that nothing you love about fluxbox is exclusive to fluxbox, and in fact they seem to be the rule for lightweight window managers.

When something is the rule, rather than the exception, it's easier to list the exceptions. I did that when I pointed out that jwm unfortunately uses non-helpful barely commented xml files instead of well commented flat text files.

It's as if you were waxing poetic about the fact that your wife has five fingers on each hand, or two legs.
.

And so I should leave my wife because some other woman also has two legs?

Everything that can be loved about a human being is an expression of something universal, which is called humanity. There's really nothing that you can love about a person that is not shared with others, perhaps everybody. Everyone is special, but no one is so special that they have invented new virtues just for themselves. Every human being is an individual expression of God's universal truth.

Likewise, everything that I love about fluxbox is an expression of something much larger, which is called Unix. I love the way fluxbox can be programmed with shell commands, but that's not unique, though I like the way fluxbox does it best of anything thing I've tried. I know for a fact that XFCE has a lot of my favorite fluxbox features, and you'll never find me debating anyone who talks about how much they love XFCE. If I dig deeper, I will almost certainly find more cool features for XFCE. If I can find a way to make XFCE settings as portable as my fluxbox settings, I could switch tomorrow. And my experience with GNU/Linux tells me that there probably is a way, because (within reason) there's always a way to do anything. Right now I'm too wrapped up ion Fluxbox, but never say never.

It doesn't surprise me that other WMs are also an expression of Unix, but in the case of IceWm, I haven't been able to access it, and you haven't chosen to help me. A half hour spent with Google also got me nowhere. If you want other people to discover IceWm, try showing them how to use it, as I have tried to do with Fluxbox. If you find that difficult, maybe that's where IceWm has a problem for some people. Or maybe someone should think about how to produce better documentation. Telling other people what you like about it isn't going to change the mind of anyone who is happy with what they're using. But a year from now, I could be an everyday IceWM user. In fact, everytime I say something really sucks (e.g. SUSE, Ubuntu) I wind up as a faithful user in a matter of months.

To put it another way, I intend to continue singing the praises of fluxbox, but when I start talking about how fluxbox is the only great wm and everybody should use it, tell me to shut up. I have an opinion about my painful encounters with Ice WM, but I don't have an opinion about IceWM, because I know that I don't get it. It may be a great window manager, but there's plenty of room for more than one great window manager in the world of Linux. Just not on my desktop.

[blackbelt_jones]

To put it still another way, I agree that I don't know much about IceWM, and if I knew more, I would probably like ti more. But so far, I have found it difficult to learn. The fluxbox configuration files are completely self-explanatory (to me). When I look at the IceWM text files, it's not so clear (so far). Am I responsible for this lack of communication, or is Ice WM? It doesn't matter. Whether it's the user's fault or the window manager's fault, the window manager is the one that has to go.

[sawsedge]

Interesting thread.

I'm grateful for all the choices available to Linux and I have to say IceWM is my favorite window manager. I've tried several including Fluxbox. For my tastes, IceWM is the most usable. I don't care for the task-switching in fluxbox. The IceWM taskbar is much easier.

Even though my hardware is now 6 years old, none of the WMs or desktops I've tried are sluggish by any means.

I find the IceWM config files pretty easy, though I really had no trouble figuring out fluxbox configs.

I've made several themes for IceWM too. :)

[Syngin]

heh, as soon as I saw this title I thought to my self "uh oh, this is going to get blackbelt foaming at the mouth" :p

lol yeah me too. It can be sort of like watching a car wreck at times ...

[Megatron X]

// isaackuo, how does windowmaker run on your system???

[blackbelt_jones]

lol yeah me too. It can be sort of like watching a car wreck at times ...

Yeah, but a high quality car wreck. A European car wreck!:)

[blackbelt_jones]

// isaackuo, how does windowmaker run on your system???

I think I know the answer:

It's breastakaboobical, chestakamammical, pendular globular fun!
Fleshical orbulal, moundula, scoopula?
Right-o! That's the one!
Is it gluteal maximal, tu****al crackular, bunular morning 'til night?
Well you're absotiglandular, fanny-fantastical, mastokafleshular right!

It's an arealogical autoerotical tubular boobular joy!
An exposular regional, batchical pouchular fun for girl and boy!
A litisimal dorsical, hung like a horsical, caliphyligical ball!
The most bunular funular!
Fruit of the loomular!
Frenchical tongular!
Wabitaboobular!
WM of them alllllllllll!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ePusmtf1IQ&feature=related

[Megatron X]

I think I know the answer:

// hey thanks for the jibberish answer/link...:rolleyes:

[blackbelt_jones]

// hey thanks for the jibberish answer/link...:rolleyes:

Glad you liked it. I was a huge MST3K fan all through the 90s (now I am a medium sized fan) and when you asked Issac how IceWM behaved on his system, it somehow reminded me of Gypsy saying "Hey Guys, how's the movie?"

[IsaacKuo]

// isaackuo, how does windowmaker run on your system???
I don't use windowmaker. I tried it briefly a couple years ago, but I instantly disliked its look and feel. It's obviously based on the original NeXT interface, which I actually used back in 1989 (Steve Jobs supplied Cornell with a computer room full of pre-release NeXT workstations). The big dock icons were a huge waste of screen space back then, and they still are now.

I greatly prefer tiny taskbar icons ala Windows 95+, which IceWM uses.

BTW, this is actually a timely reply for me right now--I live in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

[blackbelt_jones]

You were at Cornell in 1989? I worked there in the summer of 1987 when I was at Binghamton. I was a summer lab assistant for the Geotechnical Dept. It was an awesome job, about 90 per cent work free.

Anybody who went to a prefab state school like me can't imagine the sprawling awesomeness that is Cornell. The campus is like a city. I rented a room in a frat house for 25 dollars a week with a pool table and HBO. The friend who got me the job would take me for delicious ice cream made by agricultural students. I swam in the Gorge. Carl Sagan was my neighbor. His house looked like a fortress, and can you blame him? Can you imagine the crazies who must have sought him out?

Am I off topic yet?

[IsaacKuo]

I started at Cornell in the fall of 1988, and attended a grand total of one lecture by Carl Sagan during my four years there.

I agree that Cornell is sprawling and beautiful, but I guess I must be spoiled because the other campuses I'm familiar with are also sprawling and beautiful (Louisiana State University, UC Berkeley).

[blackbelt_jones]

I've got icewm running right now, and I think it's pretty self evident that the text files aren't anywhere near as easy to edit as fluxbox. There's a reall accesibility problem here, but it seems like a lot of this could be easily fixed. Why do I have to copy files from /etc/X11 to ~/icewm in order to edit them? Why can't they just be there? And the format of the configuration files, it just isn't as easy to figure out as fluxbox. The first time I looked at fluxbox files, I knew how to edit them. It was all self-evident. If I waqnt to edit these, I'm going to have to look at more documentation, which is not as enjoyable as not having to look at documentation.

So maybe that's what so great about fluxbox. It's not necessarily more configurable than other wms, but compared to this one, at least, I think it's easier to configure.


HOWEVER

Yeah, Icewm is definitely ligther. On my old P3 box, I'm seeing a noticible performance boost, and in a place that counts. Streaming video is almost seamless. So I think there are reasons why fluxbox is so popular, but clearly, icewm has got it going on in a whole different way.