From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 6 03:46:06 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00ACF106564A for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 03:46:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dmitri@momus.net) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9928FC0A for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 03:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwi36 with SMTP id 36so1971173wwi.31 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.79.18 with SMTP id h18mr2671052wee.3.1312600828164; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:20:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.154.196 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:20:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [184.99.254.236] In-Reply-To: <20110806015652.GB45455@guilt.hydra> References: <20110805191214.GA19848@kar.user-mode.org> <20110805190825.d2cf7f06.rodperson@rodperson.com> <20110806015652.GB45455@guilt.hydra> From: Dmitri Brengauz Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:20:08 -0600 Message-ID: To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Alternative windowmanagers X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:46:06 -0000 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: > > On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:12:14 +0200 > > Christian Barthel wrote: > > > I sniffed into AfterStep, fvwm2 and fluxbox (I don't want to use KDE). > I > > > think, fluxbox is a nice wm and for my future, it will be the default > wm > > > for me. It's also very fast and easy to configure. > > > > > > Are there any other window manager worth looking? > > > > > > What is your window manager? > > > > 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 reason?