When comparing awesome WM vs Fluxbox, the Slant community recommends awesome WM for most people. In the question“What are the best window managers for Linux?” awesome WM is ranked 2nd while Fluxbox is ranked 6th. The most important reason people chose awesome WM is:
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Fully extensible with Lua
Pro Highly configurable
Awesome is highly configurable, allowing the user to change anything they see fit in order to make the WM work for them and their workflow.
Pro Tags instead of workspaces
With awesome, clients are organized with tags: one client can be on more than one tag, and multiple tags can be displayed at the same time.
Pro Low latency
Awesome was the first window manager to be ported to use the asynchronous XCB library instead of XLib, making it much more responsive than most other window managers.
Pro Keyboard friendly
Awesome is really keyboard friendly and you can do almost anything with keyboard shortcuts.
Pro Single window, multi-workspace support
The user can have each window visible on one, multiple, or no workspace. You can also temporarily include another workspace in the current one.
Awesome always works as it should: it is very stable and reliable.
Pro Some mouse tiling support
You can rearrange and re-size [some] panels via the mouse.
Pro Good default configuration
By default, you'll have a status bar (hidden in some modes), an application launcher, automatic fullscreen, manual fullscreen shortcut, etc.
Pro Any window can be full screen
Select the window. Hold ALT+SHIFT and press SPACE until the window takes up the entire screen.
Pro Xinerama support
Awesome has real multi-head support via XRandR/Xinerama, with per-screen desktops.
Pro Easy module for useless gaps
Lain module makes useless gaps easy.
Pro Easy to use and configure
Fluxbox has its own panel, as well as a way to set a wallpaper, which makes it easy to use out of the box. Configuring Fluxbox to one's liking is easily done by simply editing text files.
Pro Ultra lightweight
Works FAST on any system.
Pro Simple mouse-driven menus
By simply right-clicking on the desktop, the user can pull up the root menu.
Pro Easy key binding
You can quickly and easily bind keyboard events to applications and wm events.
Pro It's easy to find many new styles and configuration options
Fluxbox has many great themes and config options that are ready for download and installation. In addition to this, there is great documentation on how one can make their own themes or edit their own configs to their liking.
Pro No programming language knowledge required
In order to manage and edit Fluxbox settings and menus, the user does not require programming knowledge.
Pro Styles (themes) are easy to manage, create, and change
Simple to style and has many styles available. You can also change styles real-time.
Pro Simple tiling support
Automated tiling is optional and configurable by a simple text file.
Pro Menu can stay visible or hidden for quick access to application launching
The Fluxbox menu system is easily configured to the user's liking, whether they want to keep it hidden or visible.
Pro Large user base and excellent online documentation
Fluxbox has an substantial, active user base, and great online documentation.
Con You should have some skills to configure it
Awesome, like most window managers, is targeted at advanced users. Though is has sane defaults and easy to read documentation, it is still a far jump from the more common graphical UIs found in computing.
Con Doesn't have tabbed containers
There is no option to have tabbed containers in awesome window manager.
Con Difficult to google for solutions to problems
Awesome is a very common word, making searches for solutions to problems using Google very time-consuming as a lot of chaff has to be sifted through.
Con Concept of layout sometimes does not fit what you want
The concept of layout sometimes does not fit what you want, for example, if you like the concept of layouts in tmux or in i3 - it works differently here.
Con Some programs don't cooperate well with tiling window managers
The user can usually work around this, but it can be quite annoying at the same time.
Con Regular API breakage
Results in many of the scripts for awesome to be found online end up being outdated.
Con Configuration uses Lua (Programming Language)
It is time-consuming to make changes to configuration. Though Lua is a good language, a plain text file to configure things would seem to be a better approach.
Con Requires setup of some configuration files
Con Difficult to master
It does take time to learn the ins and outs of all that can be changed by editing the configs. It can also take some time to finally attain a configuration that is perfect. Many users constantly change and edit their settings, but consider this part of the joy of using Fluxbox.
Con Comparatively heavy on system resources
Fluxbox is a bit heavier on system resources when compared to Openbox or other window managers (though it does come with more options as well).