• From: Nijmegen, Holland
  • Registered: 2009-12-11
  • Posts: 230

Topic: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

Maybe this topic is better called: What is the quintessential  openbox set up?

WM/DE talk (was openbox talk) is the title of this section.
Philip moved to XFCE; sHy, main dev of my beloved Archbang is moving to LXDE; my fav python programmer  is making an adeskbar that makes very efficient use of mouse control for apps and window focussing and with the panel function is competing with tint.

What happened to the K.I.S.S philosophy that was for me so essential to the openbox environment; is this just progress and am I just the old slob, that is always being behind the rest of the field (which is of course the case)? Is openbox just another window manager or does it suit especially some sort of more encompassing approach?

I was converted to openbox by discovering Urukrama Openbox guide http://urukrama.wordpress.com/openbox-guide/.
Made my first openbox set up based on his guide; this has formed my vision of it.
If you study his rc.xml file,  wget http://dotfiles.org/~urukrama/rc.xml_07-2008 , you see he makes very extensive use of the keyboard.
See also http://urukrama.wordpress.com/2008/07/2 … ybindings/

So for me Openbox was  all about moving away from mouse control and Windows like start menu's and desktop icons. I was amazed, some people liked to fill that empty tidy desktop with a lot of clutter of htop, conky and all sort of screen.
Keyboard control, dmenu, gmrun,  I only used conky to learn the app keyboard short-cuts, so now its is nearly gone. I tried a lot of panels with it but only tint felt right because of its minimalistic features.

Is it the nature of things that we want to keep adding features to something till it feels like most extensive 20 room villa or the latest Mercedes?

In a discussion with a friend of mine on openbox I compared it to an old Deux Chevaux car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV. A very simple but at the same time luxurious car which had its heydays from 1955 till 1980. The seats were wonderful, you could take very easily take them out and had everywhere the most comfortable chairs and sofa at your disposal; you could turn it into a cabriolet by rolling up the canvas roof; it had the best natural air-co and the suspension was like drifting on the clouds; at the same time it was a car that you could repair yourself and used the most simple method for everything thinkable.
It was the poor man's Mercedes and dangerous as hell. [Please don't spoil this topic by starting a discussion on your fav car]

I wonder if anybody understands what I am talking about and recognizes some of the worries that something grand is threatening to get lost in the ever evolving progress?
Is this just a very personal view on developments or am I right that we're throwing away the baby or should I say 2CV?

Last edited by pablokal (2010-06-20 12:31:14)

GNu/Linux: Nu nog schoner: http://linuxnogschoner.blogspot.com/  Dutch

pablokal's Website

  • Registered: 2008-11-25
  • Posts: 4,363

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

pablokal wrote:

I wonder if anybody understands what I am talking about and recognizes some of the worries that something grand is threatening to get lost in the ever evolving progress?

I don't see much getting lost here at CrunchBang. Despite the fact that corenominal and others are mainly using Xfce doesn't mean that Openbox is on the way out at CrunchBang. In fact I think it is stronger than ever. What we have now are two desktop environments that look the same out of the box and essentially function in pretty much the same way. Both are minimalistic, icon free, have pretty much the same ram usage and their workflows are quite similar. This is of course with the exception of the menu which is highly configurable in Openbox.

I see that as a win win for everyone. I prefer Xfce with a dynamic menu that I don't have to think about to much and some nice but not overly intensive compositing. Others love the Openbox menu with its pipe menus and endless configuration options.

At the moment I'm quite tempted to have a look at what is happening with the cairo-compositing manager in the Openbox version. It probably won't tempt me away from the Xfce permanently but with CrunchBang I have the choice. At the moment Xfce suits my workflow but that may change in the future. Choice is a beautiful thing smile

  • From: Lincoln, UK
  • Registered: 2008-11-20
  • Posts: 4,244

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

I am not sure if anyone is aware of this(?), but I have moved back to using Openbox. I loved my time in Xfce, but I missed Openbox's total awesomeness. big_smile

My website | Follow me on Twitter | CrunchBang on DistroWatch

corenominal's Website

  • Registered: 2008-11-25
  • Posts: 4,363

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

corenominal wrote:

I am not sure if anyone is aware of this(?), but I have moved back to using Openbox. I loved my time in Xfce, but I missed Openbox's total awesomeness. big_smile

lol, I suspected as much with all the extra theme work and pipe menus happening smile

  • From: Lost River Lake
  • Registered: 2009-02-19
  • Posts: 514

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

Heh, just when I was becoming so surprisingly fond of XFCE... No, actually this is very good news, meaning that we shall also in the future have BOTH a splendid XFCE desktop AND a terrific Openbox setup as options in CrunchBang! I might return to using Openbox (with a Debian menu) on a daily basis, while the rest of the family will keep enjoying the laid-back features of XFCE.

I never use smilies, but there are exceptions that prove the rule wink
Now playing: Last.fm
  • From: Nijmegen, Holland
  • Registered: 2009-12-11
  • Posts: 230

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

In fact I think it is stronger than ever.

but I have moved back to using Openbox. I loved my time in Xfce, but I missed Openbox's total awesomeness. big_smile

Glad to hear this! Was misinterpreting developments as it seems.

GNu/Linux: Nu nog schoner: http://linuxnogschoner.blogspot.com/  Dutch

pablokal's Website

  • Registered: 2008-11-24
  • Posts: 1,858

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

#! was mixed Xfce/Openbox from day one; Philip just forgot to include the Xfce session for a couple releases in the middle there. big_smile

  • From: Lincoln, UK
  • Registered: 2008-11-20
  • Posts: 4,244

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

^ lol

My website | Follow me on Twitter | CrunchBang on DistroWatch

corenominal's Website

  • Kyte
  • #! Junkie
  • Offline
  • From: midwest usa
  • Registered: 2009-07-19
  • Posts: 275

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

When I read what was going on with Debian I was rather surprised at the move but also thought that the "original" way of doing things would be somehow preserved.

So, I lurked and watched and after most had said that Statler was not actually blowing a monitor up I decided to download and install OpenBox and was I surprised!

No menu configuration, the menu items just kind of appeared magically as if plucking Golden Apples from the Sun as it were....

I can appreciate that...really.........AND BLUETOOTH....ooooohhhhhh yeaaahhhhh and xmms2 works so much easier....don't know why but it does.

So, in the interests of getting on with work, no money, no play! ,  I'll keep Statler on the work machine( the tower)..... but...I've reinstalled the pristine elegance, (to do a riff on pablocal) of my original #! on the laptop and will probably keep it until the poor thing is laying beside the road with no transmission, no engine, no wheels, but still with a really shiney bonnet and comfortable interior.

Kyte

Kyte: Always flittin' around with his head in the clouds!
  • From: California, USA
  • Registered: 2008-11-29
  • Posts: 8,647

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

Like omns said, its about choice. People like to customize their setups, people's needs change, and people have their own preferences as to mouse vs keyboard. There is no right or wrong way to use Openbox and if you prefer the K.I.S.S. philosophy then thats fine. Don't worry about other people with more complex configurations.

Note: ** Please read before posting **

BTW if you wish to contact me, send me an e-mail instead of a PM.
  • Awebb
  • #! Die-hard
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-07-23
  • Posts: 2,308

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

The only conclusion I might draw out of the fact that more and more former Openbox users now give XFCE a try is, that XFCE is finally usable again. It seems like the damage Xubuntu dealt to the reputation of XFCE is slowly beeing repaired...

I still prefer Openbox for simple Desktops. Since I usually don't care about a few dependencies here and there, I love the blend of Openbox and Thunar, wich is my favorite non-Nautilus file manager. I'd use Nautilus everywhere, but it simply pulls too many dependencies on board (!= a few). Anyway, the perfect file manager for me has yet to be written.

I'm so meta, even this acronym
  • From: Srbija
  • Registered: 2010-04-06
  • Posts: 58

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

@pablokal

What an excellent post. I first used Linux with Gnome, then I discovered Xfce and then Fluxbox. As I was trying to build my minimal Ubuntu with Fluxbox on it (on a partition, testing it to hopefully have it as my main system), I stumbled across Crunchbang. It was Debian! and Openbox. A thing of beauty. It takes nothing away from me usability-wise and cleans up the clutter.

For me the Gnome-Xfce-box road has been a natural trend that came from me asking myself: what is it that I actually need and use, not what I think I need, or what I might need and use in the future, or what others think I should. It's never been about old hardware and whatnot. It's an approach to computing that can be applied to how we do other things in life and make that life better.

  • From: Nijmegen, Holland
  • Registered: 2009-12-11
  • Posts: 230

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

@Iskander
Thanks for the compliment and this

For me the Gnome-Xfce-box road has been a natural trend that came from me asking myself: what is it that I actually need and use, not what I think I need, or what I might need and use in the future, or what others think I should. It's never been about old hardware and whatnot. It's an approach to computing that can be applied to how we do other things in life and make that life better.

is also very well put in reflecting the same mindset that I associate with openbox.
It's indeed about more than just a wm; it is also a way of valuing what is precious or not, what is essential or not, and what is too much bling bling for me and even what bling I like, though it is only on the outside. It is, like you imply, a way of expressing your individuality in a form of computing and discovering the means and the freedom to be able to do it. As anonymous states there is no good or wrong in this game. It is just that in our culture everybody, including me, is running in the direction of more and more. It is not so easy to focus on the core, to cut away the strangling growth of superfluous branches and not get lost in sideways.
< cough, cough>

Last edited by pablokal (2010-06-20 22:05:58)

GNu/Linux: Nu nog schoner: http://linuxnogschoner.blogspot.com/  Dutch

pablokal's Website

  • Digit
  • #! Die-hard
  • Offline
  • From: the internet
  • Registered: 2009-05-26
  • Posts: 649

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

corenominal wrote:

I am not sure if anyone is aware of this(?), but I have moved back to using Openbox. I loved my time in Xfce, but I missed Openbox's total awesomeness. big_smile


yaaaaay!  smile

first i've seen of this grand and happy revelation.  smile  wink big_smile

educate yourself so you may educate others.DeNoob&UnBloat PCs!
the only free webhosting i use.
say "NO!" to a chemical lobotomy in your food
flattr me, thnx

Digit's Website

  • Registered: 2009-12-11
  • Posts: 181

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

It's the same with everything, pab. The drift is away from simple to 'more'. Personally, I prefer the more simple things in life but try getting them. For example, (a slight detour to illustrate my point), I've been with my current mobile phone provider for years because they offer me the best value for money. Unfortunately, they don't do basic phones: all I want to do is call, send texts and have a diary function. When I renewed my subscription, I chose the most basic phone available to me. There's little it can't do: internet, video calls, video camera, route finding, etc, etc, etc. It's all wasted on me.
Cars: my current ride is a Citroen ZX 1.9 diesel made in 94. No turbo, manual windows, steel wheels, runs on veggie oil, etc. Even the central locking is an extra too much in my book.
My CD player has an electrically-opening drawer; again, it's not needed.
I do feel the push for new technology is decreasing our ability to sustain it.
Anyways, regarding your original thoughts: this is one area in which I don't have to compromise. I can strip my OB environment right back to basics; someone else may want all the bells and whistles. Vive la difference, as they say in Grimsby.

  • benj1
  • Wiki Wizard
  • Offline
  • From: Yorkshire, England
  • Registered: 2009-09-05
  • Posts: 1,084

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

zengrapefruit wrote:

Vive la difference, as they say in Grimsby.

I've obviously never been to that part of Grimsby tongue

I do agree with you tho, features unfortunately sell, i've made the point before (some where around here) that the same pressure is on open source apps, how many times have you heard some one asking if a projects dead, just because it hasn't made a release in 3 months, i've heard the same questions asked about openbox, nice to see they're resisting the urge to 'improve'

- - - - - - - - Wiki Pages - - - - - - -
#! install guide           *autostart programs, modify the menu & keybindings
configuring Conky       *installing scripts
  • IgorP
  • #! Junkie
  • Offline
  • From: Zagreb, Croatia
  • Registered: 2009-07-10
  • Posts: 338

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

Well do it on your own, or try to convince others same thing.
Yes, there is a middle where you customize a little.

I've been happy with Arch + Openbox. Then I bought new laptop and Linux doesn't have appropriate drivers for my ATI Mobility Radeon.. Fan runs 110% with Arch.

So, my dear friends.. I'm back to Windows again.. Drivers are good, and Win7 looks like Linux desktop. I've optimized services, themes and stuff that OS eat "just" 450 MB of RAM. On Arch and Cruncbang it was about 74 MB.

I hope developers will reverse that drivers for Linux soon smile

To conclude, it seems that only change is constant..

My best regards!

IgorP's Website

  • From: Scotland
  • Registered: 2009-12-29
  • Posts: 330

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

no, no, no I'm about to buy a Toshiba laptop with ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250. Is there a problem with it?

  • IgorP
  • #! Junkie
  • Offline
  • From: Zagreb, Croatia
  • Registered: 2009-07-10
  • Posts: 338

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

bozhkov wrote:

no, no, no I'm about to buy a Toshiba laptop with ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250. Is there a problem with it?

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ATI

I don't know about Toshiba. I bought HP.

Regards!

IgorP's Website

20 Reply by dom

  • dom
  • #! Member
  • Offline
  • From: de
  • Registered: 2010-09-29
  • Posts: 56

Re: In defense of a simple Openbox set up

I agree with pablokal. Keeping it simpel in everydays life seems getting harder. but that might be a point: the energy you have to invest in keeping it simpel is not worth it anymore.

simpel stuff (not only technical) is often outdated and brings quite some trouble with it.

[geek to live; don't live to geek]