Hi all,
is there somewhere a handy description telling me about the real (users feel) differences between
XFCE, MATE, Openbox, Fluxbox...versions of Salix?
Since salix 13 or so I am always using the XFCE version, but I wonder if I miss something not switching to any of the above.
Is there a comparison or can someone tell me in an few lines about similarities and differences?
Thanks in advance.
Differences between the window managers
Differences between the window managers
Regards Gruß
jpg
jpg
Re: Differences between the window managers
I'm sure you can find several references online about those. Not specifically for salix, but what you will find should generally apply.
In a few words and solely in my opinion:
MATE and Xfce: should be mostly the same. They provide similar features and consume similar resources. MATE might have a few more features (nothing too important) but might be very slightly heavier (not really measurable though).
Openbox: A lot lighter than the previous two. A lot fewer features too though, but will get the job done. The openbox edition in Salix is made to feel like a "normal" desktop, with a panel including an applications menu, a taskbar etc. Probably a better fit for really older hardware than MATE/Xfce for people that want a "normal" desktop.
Fluxbox: Even lighter that openbox, but it's more *nix-y. Not your average desktop. If you like fluxbox, you'll like this.
Ratpoison: This is very special, very different and esoteric really. It's completely different than anything you've tried. After installation you might find that you have no idea how to even start a terminal without reading the manual. There probably will never be a 14.1 release.
KDE: It's a complete desktop, kitchen sink included. A lot heavier than anything else. I never really liked it myself. There probably will never be a 14.1 release either.
In a few words and solely in my opinion:
MATE and Xfce: should be mostly the same. They provide similar features and consume similar resources. MATE might have a few more features (nothing too important) but might be very slightly heavier (not really measurable though).
Openbox: A lot lighter than the previous two. A lot fewer features too though, but will get the job done. The openbox edition in Salix is made to feel like a "normal" desktop, with a panel including an applications menu, a taskbar etc. Probably a better fit for really older hardware than MATE/Xfce for people that want a "normal" desktop.
Fluxbox: Even lighter that openbox, but it's more *nix-y. Not your average desktop. If you like fluxbox, you'll like this.
Ratpoison: This is very special, very different and esoteric really. It's completely different than anything you've tried. After installation you might find that you have no idea how to even start a terminal without reading the manual. There probably will never be a 14.1 release.
KDE: It's a complete desktop, kitchen sink included. A lot heavier than anything else. I never really liked it myself. There probably will never be a 14.1 release either.
Re: Differences between the window managers
Gapan,
thanks for the brief and condensed summary.
Seems I will stick with XFCE as the "look and feel" is ok. I dont care too much about resources, although my "core i3" is getting old...
thanks for the brief and condensed summary.
Seems I will stick with XFCE as the "look and feel" is ok. I dont care too much about resources, although my "core i3" is getting old...
Regards Gruß
jpg
jpg
Re: Differences between the window managers
Memory usage in different window managers
https://l3net.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/ ... -desktops/
https://l3net.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/ ... -desktops/
Desktop: Celeron - 2 GB RAM - HD 160 GB - Slackel/Salix - icewm/jwm - Grub
KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid
KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid