CrunchBang Linux Forums » CrunchBang Talk » Openbox vs XFCE?
As others stated before, Crunchbang was the first disrto to introduce me to Openbox, so whatever direction philip take it from now on, I'm ok with it. But Crunchbang will always stay in my mind as the openbox distro.............................and for that I'm very grateful
As others stated before, Crunchbang was the first disrto to introduce me to Openbox, so whatever direction philip take it from now on, I'm ok with it. But Crunchbang will always stay in my mind as the openbox distro.............................and for that I'm very grateful
+1 
Sergio17771 wrote:As others stated before, Crunchbang was the first disrto to introduce me to Openbox, so whatever direction philip take it from now on, I'm ok with it. But Crunchbang will always stay in my mind as the openbox distro.............................and for that I'm very grateful
+1
same goes for me
thanx a LOT #!
johnraff wrote:*it's impossible to customize the menu at present
Its less customizable (than Openbox) and doesn't have a GUI app or simple file, but I would not call it impossible.
You can easily add new .desktop files in /usr/share/applications or ~/.local/share/applications. And if you want to hide an entry (instead of remove) you can just edit the .desktop file and make sure it has "NoDisplay=true" in it.
On reflection, though, it would be quite hard to reproduce the custom #! menu by editing desktop files! All those submenus, config files, web links and man pages... I suppose it could be done with drop-down launcher menus in xfce-panel or something.
Like I said, it is less customizable. Though for just just launching programs, the Xfce menu is nice.
^ yes indeed
I don't really mind if #! goes xfce but will probably change back to ob myself.
There could always be two editions.
Maybe even a gnome and kde edition too, so that no one has to use Ubuntu 
I do think that openbox has done great things for the popularity of openbox and that people who might have stayed with their previous distro have since learned alot about linux they may never otherwise have gotten the chance to. (May never have needed to is another argument 
)
B
Like I said, it is less customizable. Though for just just launching programs, the Xfce menu is nice.
One could think of Xfce as "it just works, less customization, start productivity now" and Openbox as "configure first, more customization, then you can produce". So it depends on what one wants and at what time.
For a quick system setup of a nice and fast desktop Xfce is very good. If we then want to further customize, we can even ditch xfce-panel and use tint2. But to fully customize the best is Openbox, or Pekwm...
Like I said, it is less customizable. Though for just just launching programs, the Xfce menu is nice.
What'chu talkin' 'bout, anonymous? I have the default xfce-applications.menu file open in Nano right now. It looks like a variant of XML.
I love openbox.
Because i'm a geek.
Friend of mine: "can i use your pc to check the email?"
Me: "Help yourself mate"
Friend of mine:"...oh my god...WHERE ARE THE ICONS?"
Priceless.
I love openbox.
Because i'm a geek.
Friend of mine: "can i use your pc to check the email?"
Me: "Help yourself mate"
Friend of mine:"...oh my god...WHERE ARE THE ICONS?"Priceless.
yeah, because you can't be iconless on WinXP/Vista/Seven/Gnome/KDE/XFCE/LXDE, and you cant have icons on Openbox. 
Last edited by danielrmt (2010-03-05 17:03:59)
Well, you *can* have icons in Openbox if you tell PCManFM to manage your desktop. But you can also not have icons in XFCE. You can also go iconless in LXDE if you tell PCManFM to not manage your desktop.
Don't know much about this in Gnome or KDE, as I've only really gotten into customizing desktops with my slow little netbook.
anonymous wrote:Like I said, it is less customizable. Though for just just launching programs, the Xfce menu is nice.
What'chu talkin' 'bout, anonymous? I have the default xfce-applications.menu file open in Nano right now. It looks like a variant of XML.
Isn't it dynamically created by the system though, so any changes you made would be overwritten?
Afaik the file does not change. The only thing that is dynamic is that it checks for desktop files in /usr/share/applications or ~/.local/share/applications.
@pvsage - do you know if you can add programs directly to the xfce-applications.menu file without creating .desktop files?
It may be possible, but the default applications menu apparently uses the .desktop files, and .directory files for, well, directories.
EDIT: I could try it, add the applications menu to my little XFCE panel and report back.
UPDATE: A quick scan of this page suggests you have to use the .desktop and .directory files for applications. I have to assume that the .directory files in desktop-directories are auto-updated, but maybe a custom one could be placed elsewhere?
...and Omns snuck in with the same link while I was editing this!
Last edited by pvsage (2010-03-05 19:20:34)
I usually refer to this
ErSandro wrote:I love openbox.
Because i'm a geek.
Friend of mine: "can i use your pc to check the email?"
Me: "Help yourself mate"
Friend of mine:"...oh my god...WHERE ARE THE ICONS?"Priceless.
yeah, because you can't be iconless on WinXP/Vista/Seven/Gnome/KDE/XFCE/LXDE, and you cant have icons on Openbox.
In Win 7 you can go iconless out of the box if you want. in xp and vista you need to hack the registry though,,,
All the linux desktops can be iconless as well.
From exterme to extreme..going to shell as well
I usually refer to this
So if Crunchbang switched to XFCE Corenominal would do all this for us...?
Cool.
(You can see the appeal of Openbox over XFCE whn you want to deviate from the norm.)
I love Fluxbox the most. So I choose Openbox, at least until I have time to set up an Arch machine again.
I always setup XFCE for friends and family who want to use linux. It's easy for them to understand and less complicated for them coming from Win.
I hope #! remains Openbox instead of adopting a desktop environment. Most any d.e. can be installed on top anyway. It's amazingly customizable, and I always go "iconless" whether I'm in a Gnome, KDE, Xfce, or LXDE session. The beauty of Openbox is that if you want icons you can have 'em, but without any of the slowdown you get (on older 'puters anyway) by using a full desktop environment. Is this an actual poll? I vote Openbox! Don't change it - but maybe someone can offer an Xfce "edition" of Crunchbang, and/or an LXDE edition. But again, for that matter, it's easy enough to just install a d.e. for users that prefer a d.e. for their session.
-Robin
Most any d.e. can be installed on top anyway....But again, for that matter, it's easy enough to just install a d.e. for users that prefer a d.e. for their session.
Although I agree with your thoughts, you do realize that you can make the same argument against Openbox?
LOL you're right, Anonymous.... but there are a zillion and twelve Xfce distros already, and about a zillion and 9 LXDE distros now, about 30 zillion Gnome and KDE distros, and what - three or four Openbox ones. #! is unique (mostly). And besides, it has the coolest name, the coolest implementation, and the coolest community.
-R
You could also have Xfce AND Openbox - install the Xfce system and replace xfwm4 with Openbox. You'd have all the features of both...
Or just add a few of the xfce components to Crunchbang - Thunar I'm thinking of especially.
Yes Thunar would be nice, with omploader script and whatnot as default custom actions - really handy.
Posts [ 51 to 75 of 168 ]
CrunchBang Linux Forums » CrunchBang Talk » Openbox vs XFCE?
Forums powered by PunBB. Hosted by Linode.
Copyright © CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian GNU/Linux.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.