Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 6 Aug 2011 08:26:39 -0600
From:      Chad Perrin <>
Subject:   Re: Alternative windowmanagers
Message-ID:  <20110806142639.GB48611@guilt.hydra>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <20110806015652.GB45455@guilt.hydra> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 09:20:08PM -0600, Dmitri Brengauz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:08:25PM -0400, Rod Person wrote:
> > >
> > > If you like Fluxbox you might want to try OpenBox.
> >
> > Nah.  Stick with Fluxbox.
> Sorry, but why?  I went with OpenBox, because it seemed like it was under
> current development, and Fluxbox is stagnant, otherwise, I didn't see much
> difference.  But I do find it curious that so many on this thread are
> recommending Fluxbox, and almost no one OpenBox.  What would be the reaso=

Fluxbox supports window tabbing.  Last I checked, OpenBox did not.  In
fact, amongst the 'box window managers, window tabbing is pretty much the
killer feature.

That, and it has a better license than OpenBox.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>