iB::Topic::compare fluxbox and jwm

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » X and Fluxbox » compare fluxbox and jwm

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (3) </ 1 [2] 3 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: compare fluxbox and jwm

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Dec. 21 2007,16:28

jwm is a very recent 2.0

Run the following to see:

jwm -v

fluxbox is v0.1.14

fluxbox -help

fluxbox requires more resources and needs additional processes, i.e., fluxter, to provide a pager, than jwm.

fluxbox has a higer learning curve. Miniimzed windows and its Tabbed windows capability.

jwm is more familiar to casual users as it is similiar to the other user inteface that one is forced to use when they buy a computer.

Advanced users usually load their preferred window manager.

I chose JWM for DSL for its familar operation and less resource demands.

Edited by roberts on Dec. 21 2007,16:28

dslrgm

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Dec. 21 2007,16:37

Quote (roberts @ Dec. 21 2007,11:28)

jwm is a very recent 2.0

fluxbox requires more resources and needs additional processes, i.e., fluxter, to provide a pager, than jwm.

jwm is more familiar to casual users as it is similiar to the other user inteface that one is forced to use when they buy a computer.

Advanced users usually load their preferred window manager.

I chose JWM for DSL for its familar operation and less resource demands.

v2.0 is only 6 months back. (Not bad compared to what I have 'gotten' use to on Centos thanks to the 'upstream' source).

What is pager? one more tihng to figure out...

Yes, more familiar to those of us having to run linux servers and opting for Centos

(Yes I actually have **1** XP system, **2** Win2000 systems, and one NT system ;) ).

I have not felt the urge to try out KDE; too much else to figure out.

Less resources? I can appreciate that on my 64Mb Libretto.

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Dec. 21 2007,16:44

The pager is those little boxes to switch workspaces (desktops).

On a lower resource machine, I would opt for jwm

Test for yourself. boot up jwm and let the system become quiescent and note the memory used and number of processes.

Now boot fluxbox and do the same.

john.martzouco Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Dec. 21 2007,23:44

Lower resources... I like that. I like that a lot actually.

There are three or four cosmetic things that I don't like, but I'll try the themes and get that worked out.

[edit: ^thehatsrule^ has offered changes on another thread for the following]
There's one thing that really bothers me though, how can I get rid of the white ovals? I know that they're there to indicate the scope of the command being summoned, but I'd like to try to configure them differently... maybe grey dashed rectangles or darker ovals or just not there at all. Is there a config for this somewhere?
[end of edit]

Thanks, this has been enticing,
John

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Dec. 22 2007,03:17

Just look at the difference in binary size alone.

603,640 fluxbox
87,192 fluxter
=======
690,832

v.s.

136,304 jwm

This not even counting the /usr/share/fluxbox directory.
And this is for a very old version of fluxbox. Newer versions are even larger.

10 replies since Dec. 20 2007,22:16

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (3) </ 1 [2] 3 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » X and Fluxbox » compare fluxbox and jwm