But it takes me so much time to get used to the hot-keys and having an index card with my poor tired eyes is not helping.
I like dark desktops and working in the dark.  I have an enlarged white picture I alt-tab maximized for light

I still go for openbox utilizing some lazyman's lxde gadgets

Good to find you all, first note here.

I was recently sold to the idea of trying i3, with claims of being able to do it all and with minimal resources.
It is very different, it comes with a good manual but it may take some time to get used to.  So keep a hardcopy of the manual next to the keyboard and a reading light, if you are like me and work in the dark with a dark desktop

I use the i3 screenlocker in my Openbox vuu-do installs, I really like it, lightweight and lightning-fast.  i3 has some neat stuff.

PS  In my non-systemd escapade I tried a FreeBsd TrueOS installation last night.  I finally gave up waiting and went to sleep.  This is like taking a leap to 2 decades back.  Absolute crap and waste of time.

Instead of merely insulting FreeBSD/TrueOS, could you (in a new thread) provide reasons for why you think using these systems is "like taking a leap to 2 decades back" and a waste of time? I would be very much interested, since I've recently tried FreeBSD (but not TrueOS) and taken some notes about my experience.

I was recently sold to the idea of trying i3, with claims of being able to do it all and with minimal resources.
It is very different, it comes with a good manual but it may take some time to get used to.  So keep a hardcopy of the manual next to the keyboard and a reading light, if you are like me and work in the dark with a dark desktop

Ram this days is relatively cheap, even for the poor like me.  Cheap enough to stay with openbox and the occassional fun day with lxde.

PS  In my non-systemd escapade I tried a FreeBsd TrueOS installation last night.  I finally gave up waiting and went to sleep.  This is like taking a leap to 2 decades back.  Absolute crap and waste of time.  Sorry BSD folks!

After days of emperimentig X11 Window Manager, it is clear that Blackbox is faster than Openbox..
It seems that it has all what users may need of.

The question is that JWM takes more memory than Blackbox.
Blackbox looks nicer than JWM in my opinion

Users can do something with it since there is a menu for changing options, embedeed.

Furthermore, I have impression that Blackbox runs extremely fast. It is very quick, new windows popup immediately, in a flash.
Openbox is too but it looks a bit slower.
Icewm is less fast. 
Just first reaction time impressions.

MEM 244/1844MB]

KiB Mem:   1889204 total,   797888 used,  1091316 free,    47784 buffers

  PID USER    PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND    
 3356 root        20   0  133420  70040  15944 S   1.7  3.7   7:47.99 Xorg
                          20   0  568940 130632 100608 S   0.3  6.9   0:06.88 chromium

  PID USER      PRI  NI  VIRT   RES   SHR S CPU% MEM%   TIME+  Command
 3366 sparrot    20   0 [b]12156  7468  6428 [/b]S  0.0  0.4  0:00.94 blackbox

Moved as requested . . .

Merci

spartrekus wrote:

I want to compile the kernel and have my own compiler and system, based on Linux kernel.

Ah thinkering about something is cool so that is cool, i just expect this 'Support>Desktop and Multimedia' forum would be about Devuan and not about something else.

Even deb packaged blackbox in Devuan i now tried works fine here and recompile fine too, so And of course thing easely goes offtopic because it is offtopic in the first place

Anyhow, we do some philosophy,...

Maybe this thread shall go/move to off-topic section.

I want to compile the kernel and have my own compiler and system, based on Linux kernel.

Ah thinkering about something is cool so that is cool, i just expect this 'Support>Desktop and Multimedia' forum would be about Devuan and not about something else.

Even deb packaged blackbox in Devuan i now tried works fine here and recompile fine too, so And of course thing easely goes offtopic because it is offtopic in the first place

spartrekus wrote:

I would be interested to compare the mem usage of JWM versus Blackbox.

Debian packaged jwm on 32bit uses about 500 KB uncached, blackbox about 800 KB, openbox about 3500 KB... but it have more features enabled since it mainly serve LXDE as i said you can take that down to 1200 KB easely or so

Of course, if anyone care about that range of sizes these days he might look at other distros, doing static and other special embeded builds or so.. on the other side general purpose builds (what major distros do)  and computing tends to be more bloated, more features and more deps also means more cached memory used and so on

jwm is ok, openbox too.
Something like Blackbox would be ok, anyhow, it can still be compiled if... fixed, and be used on libx11-dev.

my installation is on nothing to save space and resource.

     apt-get update ;  apt-get install ntpdate  links w3m ncftp  netbase wpasupplicant  make  gcc bc subversion  gcc bc ncurses-dev      
     apt-get install    nedit  scrot   xinit libx11-dev blackbox menu      xserver-xorg alsa-utils alsa-base  ssh 
     apt-get install screen openssh-server           
     and chromium

By the time, it goes to less than less... I want to compile the kernel and have my own compiler and system, based on Linux kernel. I have time, I am learning step by step. 
https://github.com/spartrekus/tinybox

I would be interested to compare the mem usage of JWM versus Blackbox.

Debian packaged jwm on 32bit uses about 500 KB uncached, blackbox about 800 KB, openbox about 3500 KB... but it have more features enabled since it mainly serve LXDE as i said you can take that down to 1200 KB easely or so

Of course, if anyone care about that range of sizes these days he might look at other distros, doing static and other special embeded builds or so.. on the other side general purpose builds (what major distros do)  and computing tends to be more bloated, more features and more deps and particualary more dynamic also means more cached memory used, probably less long term compatability of that build... and so on

spartrekus wrote:

Memory usage is my first consideration in the choice.

Ok, then maybe you'll find some interest in JWM: http://joewing.net/projects/jwm

I would be interested to compare the mem usage of JWM versus Blackbox.

Blackbox remembers me fluxbox, in a tiny way.
my users like blackbox.

  Well, you won't sell me Openbox, so far, I but well, if Openbox might reduce the use of Memory, maybe, it could be good.

You can make Openbox more tiny too, when compile disable all optional features at configure time and it would use something like 3 times less memory

Memory usage is my first consideration in the choice.

Ok, then maybe you'll find some interest in JWM: http://joewing.net/projects/jwm