Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:47:49 -0400 From: Rod Person <rodperson@rodperson.com> To: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternative windowmanagers Message-ID: <20110806134749.1efef285.rodperson@rodperson.com> In-Reply-To: <20110806142639.GB48611@guilt.hydra> References: <20110805191214.GA19848@kar.user-mode.org> <20110805190825.d2cf7f06.rodperson@rodperson.com> <20110806015652.GB45455@guilt.hydra> <CAGu_qiPssFewdGFMeodZXELQDGTf9UfhcZG1=HEv%2B3KZgna%2BEQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110806142639.GB48611@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 08:26:39 -0600 Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote: > > > > 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 reason? > > 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. I'll agree that Fluxbox license is better. But I find OpenBox more responsive and it seem to just look better to me. I'm not a fan of tabbing so that doesn't matter to me. I've been using Openbox as my WM for 4 or 5 years, before that it was Fluxbox. -- Rod Person http://www.rodperson.com "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold" blue beetle - MetaFilter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110806134749.1efef285.rodperson>