Fluxbox just gets better!

By | August 24, 2012
My favorite desktop system now has a nicer way to manipulate menus: The Fluxbox editor.

What is Fluxbox?
Fluxbox was the first desktop system that I really loved. I'm a girl, so I'm allowed to like pretty things, but only if they're fast and practical – and Fluxbox is both. It started off as a light version of Blackbox (back then Fluxbox and Blackbox were the Linux windowing pioneers of transparency, and for pluggable status bar notification icons/widgets) and it's stayed rather minimalistic over the years. Like the Dvorak keyboard, it takes a bit of getting used to – the 'holy menu' is accessed by right-clicking on the desktop – but once you do, and find a nice theme for it, it does work wonders.

Reshared post from +Gary Richmond

All desktops are created equal; however, some desktops are created more equal than others. #LXDE, #Gnome, #Unity and #KDE are brimming with menus but #Fluxbox is Spartan by comparison. Great for speed on older, slower machines but I still use on my latest dual core, 3GB memory laptop. I want that speed but I also want a better choice of applications in the Fluxbox menus. In short, all the speed without sacrificing the power. That's the problem. Fluxbox Editor is the solution.

A picture paints a thousand words, so here's why you need it.

Powering up the Fluxbox Menus with Fluxbox Editor
All desktops are created equal; however, some desktops are created more equal than others. LXDE, Gnome, Unity and KDE are brimming with menus but Fluxbox is Spartan by comparison. Great for speed on older, slower machines but I still use on my latest dual core, 3GB memory laptop. I want that speed but I also want a better choice of applications in the Fluxbox menus. In short, all the speed without sacrificing the power. That’s the problem. Fluxbo…

8 thoughts on “Fluxbox just gets better!

  1. Karsten Wegmeyer

    Gerrit i got you right 😉 and surely i do know good old fvwm and fvwm2. I do know well situations in which you might need those large viewports. 

    I prefere 1900×1200 Displays for work in my cases this is almost sufficient.

    P.S.: there is no OS beneath UNIXes and there is only one editor – vim 😉

    Reply
  2. Sophie Wrobel

    No sympathy for emacs from this vi user… but I do understand your point on needing to view large things on one small screen +Gerrit Imsieke – almost any 'modern' application will do that on my subnotebook.

    Reply
  3. Gerrit Imsieke

    +Karsten Wegmeyer (referring to: one discrete screen per group of tasks): I use my 8 continuous virtual desktops in exactly the same manner, most of the time. The advantage of one large underlying desktop area is that it is more flexible when it comes to really large windows and you want to avoid line wrapping or scroll bars. I have several key bindings for toggling through the virtual screens or for just scrolling by a 10th of the viewport height/width. But I seem to be the one of the few people who really appreciate this feature…
    At least I’m not the last emacs user standing. Although I think there are more vi (or vim) people around than emacs people. United we stand in our disdain for Textmate. (In this context: epic textmate trolling on github, https://twitter.com/apeacox/status/233898116665991168)

    Reply
  4. Karsten Wegmeyer

    hehe emacs: yep i heard about emacs, i was told it is a fantastic OS lacking a good editor 😉

    SCNR: as a vi user i laughed a lot when i read this emacs joke!

    Reply
  5. Gerrit Imsieke

    It was a wide table with some LaTeX command sequences which bloated src code line lengths. I wanted each table row in one unwrapped line of code, and I wanted the ampersands (cell separators) to be vertically aligned, and I got it, thanks to fvwm1 and emacs.

    Reply
  6. Karsten Wegmeyer

    four screens for one emacs 🙂

    so you are doing long term support don't you 😉

    i absolutely love those discrete screens! I've got one for me shells, one for the browsers, two for different IDEs, one for the Windows VM and anotherone for rdesktop-sessions or other temporary actions and i am happy that they all got there own screen!

    Reply
  7. Gerrit Imsieke

    What I don’t like about most modern desktops or window managers, including Fluxbox: they only provide discrete workspaces, rather than one large continuous desktop where you can pan the viewport. Therefore I’m still using fvwm1 when I’m using a Linux desktop.
    My emacs window once covered 4 adjacent 1280px wide virtual screens for editing a wide table in LaTeX source code, a feat that you can’t accomplish with most post-1998 window managers. Admittedly, I don’t need this feature on a regular basis (more often though than, for example, drag&drop), but it still bothers me that none of the modern WMs offers a continuous virtual desktop.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop#Oversized_Desktops

    Reply
  8. Karsten Wegmeyer

    i gave it a try a year ago and to me it's a bit to lightweight. It is fast, it is sufficient and it is really good for elder PCs or ATOM-based ones.

    But i do prefere having my Gnome3-Shell. It is fast comfortable and all major tools come up with a unique User-Experience. I know that there are a lot people who dislike Version 3 of Gnome, but i really really like it. If there isn't enough system Horsepower, Fluxbox indeed is a good alternative!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.