Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Canonical's Working On A Unity 2D Desktop

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,099

    Default

    Guys, there isn't the Clutter backend no longer exists. Srsly.

    There is absolutely no chance they will ever drop the new Compiz backend in favor of Qt. This suggestion is impossible, counter-productive and I don't like it.


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyatt View Post
    Am I the only one who thinks this is a terribly confusing name, given that Unity is also the name of a popular game dev platform (if you're on Windows or Mac for now)? Why was this sort of name collision allowed to happen?
    Given that one is a desktop and the other is a game engine...I think the world will go on :P

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyatt View Post
    Am I the only one who thinks this is a terribly confusing name, given that Unity is also the name of a popular game dev platform (if you're on Windows or Mac for now)? Why was this sort of name collision allowed to happen?
    That one is called "Unity3d" (one word). Great engine but it doesn't run on Linux and doesn't support quad-buffer stereo - otherwise I'd be using it myself.

    There are worse name collisions out there. For instance, both X and Microsoft call their input APIs XInput. Meh.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    111

    Default

    What's with all that crap?
    First Clutter -- now relatively fast btw. -- then Compiz and now Compiz and Qt?
    What the heck, do they have any brains there?
    Constantly waisting resources by recreating stuff and then throwing it away.
    _Focus_ ffs.

    I mean heck for years people were told this and that can't be on the cd because of the lack of space. Now what? Now there is mono on it, soon also Qt?
    That is a mess nothing else. How much code will they be able to reuse if they want to stick with Compiz? How much time will it be to make both look alike?
    Or will it end with a total drop of Unity in favor of the then finished Gnome 3.0 with their shell?

    They appear to be jumping on the "looks-nice"-train without knowing what they get themselves into.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    233

    Default

    Unity 2D depends on Qt and GTK+ It is the best solution for the toolkit wars.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mat69 View Post

    They appear to be jumping on the "looks-nice"-train without knowing what they get themselves into.

    That right there describes the mentality of the majority of the new users coming to Ubuntu.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    486

    Default Qt + OpenGL

    Isn't there a clean way to just base both the Unity2D and 3D on Qt, on a way that uses hardware acceleration when available? That would be a lot cleaner, if feasible!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    The clutter version was dropped two months ago.
    You're right. I was thinking that Unity still uses Clutter, the toolkit, and just moved away from Mutter which is a window manager that uses Clutter for compositing.

    Unity’s toolkit is Nux.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cl333r View Post
    Wait, but the gtk+ libs in 11.04 will be version 3.0?

    Anyway I hope rather sooner than later Canonical will take the bull by the horns and start working on improving the open-source graphics drivers rather than dancing around the problem by creating workarounds or fail-safe back-ends. Had it hired 2 years ago say 2/2/2 (thus 6) full-time devs on working on open-source drivers for amd/nvidia/intel respectively.
    hmm I donīt know about the nvidia drivers but the free ati and Intel drivers work well at least for compiz or mutter they work well. If the nouvou driver sucks? (I donīt know that but I would not be suprised) thats Nvidias fault nobody else. They did not give free sourcecode (3d) and not at least specs to build drivers. Because they donīt would loose anything (secrets) by releasing such specs (not specs how to clone the hardware, just to write drivers), they activily fight against the opensource/fs movement. I cant deny the writers of the drivers to make the driver blind, running against a wall bleeding till it falls if the head not breaks before. But I would not even see the needing of such drivers. If a company dont want to give free linux support, they should not get it for free. If they at some point become the worst choice for Linux they would sell less hardware and they have to pay the price for this unsocial behavier. Linux is today a stronger/more important brand/technologie then nvidias hardware, so there is no need for developing a free driver against the will of nvidia.

    Same point by arm. Now they are kind of lucky because windows 8 will support their plattform. But in next 1-2 years till this point they have no usable softwareconfiguration because of their secret-bulli-shit. I wanted such device because of its cheapness + 1080p + low consum + passiv... but without usable Linux I would never buy such stuff even if I have to through 50% akku-time away.
    Ok Android is ok for touchdevices. but for subnotebooks or netbooks or like they call it smartbooks android sucks like hell.

    I think thats not fair to companys like Intel and AMD which give their specs and or drivers free who pay such developers to support the bad companys so the users dont boykott their stuff because there are free drivers. So what do you learn when you give free your specs + drivers, you get nothing from it, but you have costs (loyers..., double driver development...)

    To Canonical and Unity. I donīt get the point to fork gnome 3.0 here at all. Gnome 3.0 is good, I could understand if they would make a own interessting theme and maybe one or 2 new tools, or if they tell what could be done better in gnome 3.0 If Ubuntu will as only distro this "fork" or this other gui, then it will not get the developers behind it what it needs. Ubuntu is a strong distribution in having a big community they developed as example the boot-script-thing like initd forgot the name ^^, ok we will see it more choice is not bad, so even if it suck we can swap to gnome 3.0 ^^

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,099

    Default

    For the record, Mark appears to be a big proponent of Qt.

    To Canonical and Unity. I donīt get the point to fork gnome 3.0 here at all. Gnome 3.0 is good, I could understand if they would make a own interessting theme and maybe one or 2 new tools, or if they tell what could be done better in gnome 3.0 If Ubuntu will as only distro this "fork" or this other gui, then it will not get the developers behind it what it needs. Ubuntu is a strong distribution in having a big community they developed as example the boot-script-thing like initd forgot the name ^^, ok we will see it more choice is not bad, so even if it suck we can swap to gnome 3.0 ^^
    Canonical has said that they don't like the direction Gnome 3 is taking (Gnome Shell). They haven't forked anything, Gnome 3 is intact - they just layer a different shell on top of it.

    Fork means taking the code, changing it and not contributing the changes back. This is not what's happening here. I don't know how you should call this (a divorce maybe?) but it's not technically a fork.

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
  •