Polaris96 wrote:What I meant to say was...explain a few orf the salient differences to me so I can decide whether or not I should look into it?"
LOL... fair enough.
This is just my opinion... YMMV, etc.
Since there are plenty of similarities, to me, only their differences are interesting, so that's where I'll focus.
In descending order of importance:
1) Tabs
When I'm working on a project, I usually have a zillion open tasks/windows, but these windows tend to "cluster" into naturally-occurring groups. So, for instance, I might have, say two spreadsheet windows and two editor windows open at any given moment. One spreadsheet (let's call it "A") contains data pertinent to one (and only one) of the editor windows (let's all it "A" as well); similarly, spreadsheet "B" contains data pertinent to the document in editor "B".
Like KDE 4, fluxbox offers the ability to arbitrarily "group" windows together into a single, cohesive unit. (Fluxbox calls this feature "tabs.") So editor "A" and spreadsheet "A" get linked into a single window; ditto for editor "B" and spreadsheet "B." Jumping between tabbed apps is fast and effortless. No hunting for the "right" window--it's already right there. Major timesaver.
2) Stability
Maybe OpenBox just doesn't like me, but I find it to be extremely fussy and beta-quality unstable. Fluxbox has only hiccuped on me once in a couple of months of use.
3) Ease of configuration
There's nothing particularly wrong about using XML in system config files, but there's also nothing particularly right about it, either. Fluxbox config files are plain text, so there's less cognitive overhead involved in making changes.
4) Resources
I would never pick a WM merely because it was light on resources, but I have no objection to the fact that Fluxbox is less resource-hungry than Openbox--though the difference is admittedly very small.
but that can be replaced.
