Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 77

Thread: The Future of Compiz In Question

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Groningen, The Netherlands
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Really? I thought the biggest problem was that the eyecandy was just that, eyecandy and useless for day to day work (with the exception of certain accessibility plug-ins).

    If Compiz wants to attract more developers they should consider providing eyecandy that serves a function beyond that of "bling."
    I really don't agree here, in my opinion the 'bling' does a lot for the OS, it is the first thing people see and is also the thing 95% of the regular home and office users look at for a great part of the day. Personally I like the things I spend lots of time looking at to be pretty!

    A small example: I've my TV hooked up to a HTPC (actually a bunch of parts with really big and silent coolers thrown in the TV furniture) and use it to play movies, play music, browse a bit, that kind of stuff. Now I set this up with the Ubuntu Netbook Remix GUI and it looks absolutely gorgeous and friends (actual non tech ones) who play with it generally really like how it looks and works. The reactions are mostly: "hey, that Linux stuff looks nice, I'd like to have something like that". Much in contrast to the reactions to a basic, dull Gnome desktop. More functionality but no pretty looks. Nobody would have it.
    Last edited by StefanHamminga; 01-01-2009 at 06:49 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Really? I thought the biggest problem was that the eyecandy was just that, eyecandy and useless for day to day work (with the exception of certain accessibility plug-ins).

    If Compiz wants to attract more developers they should consider providing eyecandy that serves a function beyond that of "bling."
    There is a lot of really useless stuff in compiz (does anyone use, "Paint fire on screen"?) but even some of the eye-candy is useful in it's own way: plugins like expo and cube make using workspaces more accessible by visualising them well; there's various improvements upon alt-tab functionality and then there's the obvious stuff like full-screen zoom and the scale plugin.

    Compiz also offers some tweaks which do enhance usability in their own right: resize overlays offer a way around the usually sluggish task of resizing a window and waiting for it's widgets to constantly be redrawn; maxumize speaks for itself. Edit: I'd also argue that window animations are good in the sense that windows don't just pop on and off screen: you can see where they're being minimized to, etc.

    Compiz has a lot of fluff/crud but beyond the self-indulgence, compiz makes the *nix desktop more complete.
    Last edited by etnlWings; 01-01-2009 at 06:48 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default

    This article doesn't say where those developers are going to. If People are leaving Compiz to work on KWIN or a new compositing manager for GNOME, it's fair to say that project isn't in bad shape, but merely evolving. It's not a failure if the tech used in Compiz finds it's way into more integrated solutions (like KWIN), it's a success. If, however, those developers are leaving Compiz because they are sick of the tech, then that is a problem

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    I found this to be interesting and insightful. Why not Compiz?

    http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KWi...ease-notes#FAQ

    It's a good read all the way down to the last line,

    KWin aims to provide compositing support, focusing on providing useful compositing features and basic visual effects, while keeping its other strengths.
    which pings on usefulness bing a key feature. As pointed out by other posts here many experienced Linux desktop users go for useful before bling. Not that bling doesn't have it's place as a marketing tool .

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    Nearly every software project claims that their priorities are "useful features not bling", and "stability not haste", unlike *competing* projects
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-03-2009 at 07:56 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    I fail to understand how people can live without wobbling windows.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I fail to understand how people can live without wobbling windows.
    I live with it mostly because it wobbles the performance right out of the applications I use the most.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,405

    Default I find it amazing so few use the useful Compiz features

    I use Compiz(when I can, the latest Nvidia drivers have destroyed compositing-reinstalling older driver helped naught since they won't instal correctly). I RELY on Compiz to get things done in an efficient way.
    It allows me to view all open windows on a desktop with a gesture;all desktops with a gesture. Fast, high quality zooming has been really useful when recording tutuorials. Its tiling feature(found in a few other WM, but none that I know of that don't have problems I don't wish to deal with-GNOME user, BTW)is fantastic. The ability to group windows is(while possible by other means)is easier with Compiz, I find.
    There is a good bit of fluff, but so what? Some users like it, and as other have said, it draws attention(and I know my gf loves the wobbly windows-and she is most definitely a power user, so such stuff clearly isn't just for noobs).
    I believe I read that compiz++ plans on separating the composition from the wm? I believe this would enable one to run the same WM even if the GL requirements weren't met. Besides that, requiring people to code in C for desktop stuff is insanity. More than likely, IMHO, it will bring more problems than it helps, and performance will be hurt since I just don't think the app coders are being careful enough.
    The future is, IMO, Clutter, but NOTHING I have either seen, or heard about, comes close to the configurability of compiz.
    Regardless, I think IF compiz really does go away, this would be an extremely bad thing for linux. It gave linux something that, at the time, only Mac had, and, most importantly, showed that a linux desktop(or at least a nice looking one) wasn't an oxymoron.
    BTW, there is at least one thing I've noticed that can be worked on in Compiz:vectorize things! KDE was ahead of Gnome when it decided to require svg icons. It seems as though icons could be part of what compiz handles.
    Best,
    Liam

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default

    I'm not sure why you say that coding with C on the Desktop is insanity. I don't want to get into a language war, but C++ allows you to shoot yourself in the foot just as much as C does.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,405

    Default

    Well, very nearly. The biggest thing in C++ favor, IMO, is the most obvious: having a basically modern object oriented design. I would kill myself if I had to deal with only C for gui stuff.
    Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against C. There's nothing better if you don't need the overhead of a more modern language, but I find it takes me longer to produce sane code in c. However, I admit that that may not be the case if I focused more on C, regardless, most cs students/coders are more familiar with vm backed/non memory obsessed lanuages like java or python, ime.

    Best,
    Liam

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •