Originally Posted by randomizer;13905618
Fluxbox is a WM; Xfce is a DE. They aren't exactly comparable. You could of course compare fluxbox with Xfwm
There's also WindowMaker, Openbox and a horde of tiling WMs.
If you really want minimalist, you could use twm.
Originally Posted by chemicalfan;13905621
Xfce is a more traditional environment, but Fluxbox is lighter on memory. But there really isn't a lot in it - I prefer Xfce because it's a more traditional desktop (whilst still being much lighter than Gnome or KDE)
Edit: Of course, Randomizer is right - Xfce is a DE, not a WM. Except that Xfce is modular unlike Gnome, so it's like a hybrid DE
I guess I'm looking for something half-way through. Just like Arch or Slack being halfway though Ubuntu and LFS. I installed Xfce (took a lot less time since I had no problems like Gnome with the video drivers of Vmware as well as being half the size of Gnome) and so far I'm LOVING it. It's lightweight enough to be uber smooth, but doesn't look like an eyesore
Originally Posted by enorbet2;13907684
Forums by nature seem to have lot's of repetition and duplication and here is another one just because I try to meet this issue(s) every time I see it pop up.
Sorry about making another thread about the issue >.< Didn't quite find much in the stickies.
First a few bullet points.
* Arch is by default minimalist but fairly easy to build up
* Slackware by default, or more accurately "recommended", is "kitchen sink" full but minimalist is easily chosen through install menu.
I've yet to try Slack, but Arch is definitely straightforward. I've only had problems with the video drivers in Gnome since I'm using Vmware.
Note - Just 5 years ago Zipslack fit an entire stripped-down Slackware OpSys on a floppy. Now they can't contain a kernel and nobody cares anymore anyway since floppies went the way of all tape media.
This brings up the main point which is ... with modern hardware and especially the modular nature of *nix systems which only load on-demand, unlike Windoze which pre-fetches everything, requires all applications, drivers, etc etc to be "registered" and centralized, who wants, let alone needs, a minimalist system? The only real advantage is hard drive space which is amazingly cheap these days.
The laptop I'm using is ancient in hardware terms (2000 or so) I don't know if that's considered modern hardware? I don't know the exact specs of it (I asked my sister but since she's not that into tech, she wasn't much help). I'm mostly worried about ram usage and HD speed (it will probably be 5400rpm) rather than HD space itself which could affect the "smoothness" in it's operation.
I don't have much experience in *nix aside from Ubuntu so it could be as you said that going minimalist could have minimal improvement of performance (pun intended
If what you're after is extreme performance just go CLI. If you, like most people, actually want a balance between extreme performance and convenience features either choose a reasonable lightweight pseudo DE like Xfce or build one out of BlackBox - or - choose any DE and learn what services you don't need and turn them off. Some like to strip down the kernel to an essentially embedded type that supports exactly and only what hardware and features you have and want.
Yes, I found Xfce to have the right amount of balance. I still haven't tried fluxbox yet, and I will as soon as I get some time. I've also yet to truly experiment with Xfce. Even then, the final decision will come once I test it out on the laptop rather than the Vmware I'm currently using. I'll start with Xfce, and if it's too much, will keep downgrading until I'm satisfied with the performance.
None of this has any major impact anymore, at least on Linux. While Linux is not as scaleable and blistering fast as say OS/2 (now eCS) which is written entirely in Assembly, THE minimalist on-the-metal code, it is way faster than Windows and does NOT suffer from the whole "slows down over time" syndrome that has made most of us do a clean install for the 50th time on the same system just to get some response back with windoze.
You just made my skin crawl since I'm currently using windoze.
It seems to be a rite of passage that Linux neophytes seek minimalism but it is just an exercise anymore and actually almost a waste of time. You'll get greater return on investment learning services and command line work.
Even these only
It is more like an obsession or a fetish I guess
Originally Posted by EntTheGod;13908282
i wouldnt go with blackbox lol screw that.... fluxbox or openbox... i personally prefer openbox
and its not so much the search for a 2mb booted system with minimalism as it is I DONT WANT ALL THAT JUNK IN MY FACE! so i dont use kde, i dont use gnome, i just simply use openbox on a debian system (#!)
It's not the junk in your face so much as the junk hidden from your face
Thank you guys for all the feedback you've given me! You guys are the best!
I've encountered a small problem. I made the mistake of not making a password for the root user. Now I'm stuck at the login screen and can't log in saying it's a wrong password when I don't enter anything. The Arch user doesn't work as well, and I haven't made any users for my own. What do I do? *panic* (awesome login screen btw)Edited by __Pat__ - 6/17/11 at 2:04pm