Replace Openbox with LXDE/LXQt

---

The installer gives the option to choose Openbox… The problem is: Openbox is too limited and hard to configure, it’s unusable for 99.99% of desktop users.

LXDE and LXQt are on top of Openbox, so if you install them, Openbox is there too, you can choose from the login screen if you want. They offer way more options, are extremely lightweight too and way more easier to use, it’s something a beginner could use if he/she doesn’t need a fancy desktop with lots of features.

In my opinion the Base and Openbox options should be removed, rolling release for server(Base) doesn’t make much sense and if you know how to use just the Base you probably know how to install Arch too… and Openbox is too minimal. If you go below Xfce in terms of RAM/CPU usage you loose too many features, there’s no need to go below it for most users. But that’s my opinion.

I don’t know the status of LXQt development, maybe it’s not ready yet, so LXDE is probably more stable and it could be a better option for now, and in the future move to LXQt.

Or remove Openbox and save some time of development and maintenance, it’s less code to worry about, less bugs, etc.

The Openbox option in the installer was a key attraction for me; it’s one of the main reasons I’m running Antergos now. But I’m an Openbox fan. Not sure where you pulled the “99.99%” figure from, but whatever. If I was installing today, though, I’d consider going with ArchLabs instead of Antergos w/ Openbox. I do have LXDE (and Openbox) in my Arch installation already.

@ssspacez this is not ubuntu my friend!
one main goal is to have options and possibilities!

Base can be used to install some not included DE, or install a headless multimedia PC ?

Also server install is usefull for a lot of special systems.
(may i want to install it to my toaster?)

And as far as i know there is also an option to enable cnchi devel, and get some more DE’s not official included.

@ssspacez said in Replace Openbox with LXDE/LXQt:

In my opinion the Base and Openbox options should be removed

It is too radical a statement of yours and does not contemplate that this is a forum and varied in the elections of DE

Yeah I know it’s not popular to axe features because someone always use them but makes sense if one want to make something popular. The end result is more focus on improving what’s important for most people. This is one the reasons why Windows, macOS and Ubuntu are popular, they focus.

But I don’t think this is the goal of Antergos as far as I’ve seen in the last months, it has a lot of potential but looks like it doesn’t want to reach it, well… that’s fine, it’s not a competition to the top, I understand that.

Fragmentation is the Linux’s biggest strength and also it’s biggest weakness, people feel lost when they face too many options, for example this page I’ve found https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/window_manager, there are tons of options.

In my opinion, offering more options can reap several benefits without becoming too confusing - if done right. Wording, pictures, and explanations seem rather crucial, as well as knowing when a choice is too niche or not. In my mind, Openbox is used by enough people to warrant it staying. However, perhaps a warning in its description that it is NOT for newbies might be a good idea? That way, the confused people can just move on rather than sit there trying to puzzle it out .

What do you think?

A line dividing the list with a title like:

Advanced

• Openbox
• Base

@keegan

New users installing Antergos probably know something about Linux and will be familiar with names like GNOME and KDE, but I’m not sure about the rest, maybe Cinnamon because some come from Linux Mint.

A link on each Desktop Environment window like “Learn more about GNOME” would help the user make the decision. It could be an offline wiki, online wiki or the official page of the Desktop Environment. There’s a short description there already but I don’t think it’s enough, a link would be helpful.

As i say before: Antergos is not Ubuntu and never will be something like this, but not because focus or not on the one and only Desktop experience.

Ubuntu is mainly powered by a lot of manpower and money.

Antergos is powered by a little group of very smart devs, and by the power of a very strong, fast and up to date base system (ArchLinux), with it it offers an easy and secure way to get almost everything installed Linux can offer.

Antergon is not jet what it can be for sure!
And i do agree here with what @kegaan is marking out before, it is good to have all that options, but it must be clear and easy for newbies to get Antergos installed without choosing the wrong advanced settings or feel lost in what he have to choose and what better not.

Not important omly for the question on wich DE users should choose, also on all the options inside partition section, and about encryption e.t.c.
Advanced options should be clearly seperated from casual install setup.
A lot questions and issues are directly linked to a newbie was choosing to advanced setup options…

This would make Antergos a lot more userfriendly, would give a better user experience, and will be a helper to grow.

But again: all these good ideas and helpful explanations will not hit fertile ground the more the developers get paid more time, or manpower aside.

@joekamprad

The software selection window of Cnchi could have an advanced section too. For example the CLI firewall is not something for begginers.

@ssspacez said in Replace Openbox with LXDE/LXQt:

CLI firewall

There was the gufw before… may @developers change this caused by problems with it?

In my opinion a personal firewall is useless when you are at home behind your routers firewall, but it is usefull if you are connecting to free wifi outside… so it is for sure nothing you should use without some knowledge about how it works.

So gufw would be a better option, as it is easy to switch on and of… also for casual users.

@joekamprad some good ideas here are better suited for another topic:

https://forum.antergos.com/topic/9622/cnchi-advanced-options

I will mark this as solved as I understand that replacing Openbox is not the best option, the installer just need a better separation, and Advanced section in a few windows.