[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sawfish and Openbox: was fastest linux distro

On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:54:50 -0400
Pete Orrall <pete@cs1x.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Steve Litt
> <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 May 2014 08:51:13 -0400
> > Tony Baldwin <tony@tonybaldwin.info> wrote:
> >
> >> Sawfish and openbox, even metacity would fit in this last "just
> >> manages windows" category, and, in fact, don't even include a
> >> panel, which I think JWM has by default.
> >
> > You're just the person I need to talk to, Tony. Right now I've
> > switched over from Xfce to Openbox, and like it. Except for one
> > thing: the fonts look a whole lot worse on Openbox, and I have very
> > bad vision, so this isn't aesthetics: It affects the speed at which
> > I work. Do you know of a way to make fonts on Openbox look like the
> > ones on Xfce?
> Install the obconf package if you haven't already.  It's an easy to
> use preference manager for Openbox.  You can adjust fonts and sizes
> there, along with themes and other stuff without needing to edit
> config files.
> # apt-get install obconf
> Hope this helps!

Thanks for reminding me of Obconf, Pete!

It turns out whenever you install Openbox, Obconf comes along for the
ride. But I'm always forgetting to use it because you can't edit
hotkeys with Obconf, and hotkeys are my life, so I'm forever Vimming
~/.config/openbox/rc.xml. However, in this case, the things Obconf can
do, making fonts bigger and the like, turns out to be an attack on the
symptom rather than the root cause, because the real problem appears
(to my bad eyes) to be slight pixelization on the same fonts that look
great in Xfce.

However, for other things, I'm going to use Obconf early and often.

Thanks for helping me with this. If I can get the fonts looking good,
I'll probably go Openbox fulltime. It's snappy, and a keyboarder's


Steve Litt                *  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance

Reply to: