tyme Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 flux is a window manager, not a desktop environment. don't try to compare GNOME/KDE/XFCE4 to any of the *boxes, they have two seperate goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adriano Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Thus WM, as I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Thus WM, as I said. Sorry, my post was not directed at you, just at the discussion in general :) my apologies for not clarifying that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiedra Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 (edited) I know a lot of ppl who use Fluxbox as a home WM. I'm one of them. I use it because I think it just looks cool and it's pretty damn fast. It has nothing to do with low resources beause i'm packing power and I don't run a server. Perhaps it began as a low resource alternative to KDE, but I feel it has grown fro that. I suspect it is more of a licensing issue. Edited March 5, 2004 by spiedra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phunni Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 flux is a window manager, not a desktop environment. don't try to compare GNOME/KDE/XFCE4 to any of the *boxes, they have two seperate goals. Although - they are basically providing the same thing (in very different ways and with different features/tools) If I run Gnome then I have a GUI environment in which to do my work or play - and if I run flux, I have the same... So, while in one sense they are fundamentally different, they are also similar enough in purpose to be able to compare them - even if it's just a comparison of how well they provide a GUI environment Certainly - some aspects will not be comparable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nggalai Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 I think we've had this discussion before, in that desktop environment poll. Basically, everybody in this thread is right from his/her point of view ;), but, eh--I run Window Maker on GNOME. But you can't run sawfish without GNOME. So I'd say there's a fundamental difference. Anyway. Back on topic: I don't really see the point in the DVD Power Pack, myself. You can get everything off the web anyway. Yes, it's quite a hassle to get WDM up and running, but I don't complain MDK doesn't include WDM in their packaging. Well, actually I am, as it's by far the best Display Manager I've encountered so far, but, eh. 93, -Sascha.rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crashdamage Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 When I started using Linux about 3 years ago, like most people I started with KDE because, well, it was the most like Windoze, and in my M$-stunted thinking, I wanted a comfortable, familiar environment. As Linux expanded my thinking about possibilities, I got curious about Gnome. Once I fully realized there were LOTS of WMs, I started to really get the whole concept of Linux and choice, and I started fooling around with more of them. But once I tried FluxBox, the competition was over, and I've used it for over 2 1/2 years now (well, except for occasionally working with Ratpoison). I've tried a few others along the line, always looking to improve ya know, but it's still Flux for me. Now I just wish I had Flux for Windows at work. (If anyone knows of an equivalent for Win2k, something with no icons, etc, let me know.) But to get back on-topic a little, I think it's crazy not to include FluxBox, because it IS pretty popular and must be on the short list of most used desktops after KDE and Gnome. If licensing is an issue, I understand, I guess, as far as the download edition goes, but I'll still expect to see it in the PowerPack for 10.0 and sorely disappointed if it's not. That's why there is a PowerPack edition - to get pre-compiled rpms of proprietary drivers and software that may be free (or cheap) but not GPL'd, like Nvidia drivers, Adobe Acrobat and StarOffice. I'm fine with that, just include FluxBox. It may not be GPL'd (I really didn't know it wasn't) but it IS free and popular, so it oughtta be in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aru Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 I may say it again, it couldn't be a license issue, it is included in the main tree of debian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nggalai Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 (If anyone knows of an equivalent for Win2k, something with no icons, etc, let me know.) OT: Give LiteStep a shot. It's a tad hard to get into the concept, but once you've "got" it, there's hardly anything you can't mimic with it. My Win2k box feels much the same like the linux one, by now. http://www.litestep.net/ Don't be fooled by the NeXT-ish screenshot on the frontpage. ;) 93, -Sascha.rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiedra Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 Maybe Mandrake pissed off Fluxbox and vice versa. I noticed that there is no current binary for Mandrake without having to build from source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crashdamage Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 (edited) nggalai said: "Give LiteStep a shot. It's a tad hard to get into the concept, but once you've "got" it, there's hardly anything you can't mimic with it. My Win2k box feels much the same like the linux one, by now. http://www.litestep.net/" Thanks. I'll check into it more later when I have some time. Might work... Edited March 6, 2004 by Crashdamage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.