- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Novell's giant killer: Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 10
|
|
|
Comments (42)
22 earlier comments in the full thread.
Well, the "dumbing down" in Gnome that KDE folk usually accuse Gnome of actually comes from a large part from the HIG. I'm sure KDE would would disagree with that :-) The Gnome HIG has quite an effect on 3rd party application developers. Is that the same on the KDE side or are their specs mostly for the people working on the desktop and it's tools instead of the 3rd party application developer?
dek said:
>> depends on non-free modules (nvidia or ATI)
jimf said:
> Until this issue is resolved, I think XGL is more of a problem than a solution for Linux.
To the first poster: xgl has absolutely no dependency on non-gpl drivers. What is does depend on is fairly complete functionality in the driver. Guess what? The "evil" nvidia drivers were good to go, and just worked, and the ATI drivers sorta work, just not as well as the nvidia drivers.
And, to put to rest these "closed source" xgl conspiracy theories, it is my understanding that the open source intel i9xx drivers have been fixed to implement the missing functionality as well, and are supporting xgl quite nicely.
To the second poster: How is an option that you can enable or not, or ignore completely, as you wish, "a problem"?
>> depends on non-free modules (nvidia or ATI)
jimf said:
> Until this issue is resolved, I think XGL is more of a problem than a solution for Linux.
To the first poster: xgl has absolutely no dependency on non-gpl drivers. What is does depend on is fairly complete functionality in the driver. Guess what? The "evil" nvidia drivers were good to go, and just worked, and the ATI drivers sorta work, just not as well as the nvidia drivers.
And, to put to rest these "closed source" xgl conspiracy theories, it is my understanding that the open source intel i9xx drivers have been fixed to implement the missing functionality as well, and are supporting xgl quite nicely.
To the second poster: How is an option that you can enable or not, or ignore completely, as you wish, "a problem"?
> How is an option that you can enable or not, or ignore completely, as you wish, "a problem"?
If you're running something from Intel, It's not. Otherwise it's encouraging the use of non-GPL drivers. Or do the current GPL drivers for ATI and ATI support XGL?
What's more, the 'solution' (release of GPL drivers by NVidia and ATI) may happen, but, that the solution isn't even within the control of XGL. So again, until this issue is resolved, I think XGL is more of a problem than a solution for Linux.
I've already said that an attractive desktop 'make the experience more pleasant and increase productivity.' But, I have serious reservations in saying that a moving or spinning desktop will do any more than distract the average user... It's certainly not a productivity feature, nor, anything that the average user is going to jump at.
If gratuitous entertainment is your only goal, then I suggest gaming, or even TV as a better alternative. Of course you are entirely within your rights to ignore all that and run it anyway.
If you're running something from Intel, It's not. Otherwise it's encouraging the use of non-GPL drivers. Or do the current GPL drivers for ATI and ATI support XGL?
What's more, the 'solution' (release of GPL drivers by NVidia and ATI) may happen, but, that the solution isn't even within the control of XGL. So again, until this issue is resolved, I think XGL is more of a problem than a solution for Linux.
I've already said that an attractive desktop 'make the experience more pleasant and increase productivity.' But, I have serious reservations in saying that a moving or spinning desktop will do any more than distract the average user... It's certainly not a productivity feature, nor, anything that the average user is going to jump at.
If gratuitous entertainment is your only goal, then I suggest gaming, or even TV as a better alternative. Of course you are entirely within your rights to ignore all that and run it anyway.
> "dumbing down"
Without getting into a GUI war, I have a serious objection to anything that denys or confounds the user's control of his (or her) system. That's bad design.
Without getting into a GUI war, I have a serious objection to anything that denys or confounds the user's control of his (or her) system. That's bad design.
jimf -
>So again, until this issue is resolved, I think XGL is more of a problem than a solution for Linux.
NONONONONONONONONONONO!!
Your logic gives far too much power to the closed software vendors.
Used as a rule, it would allow nVidia, by virtue of it's closed-source driver, to squash desktop innovation, even in the presence of free alternatives from Intel and, potentially, ATI.
>So again, until this issue is resolved, I think XGL is more of a problem than a solution for Linux.
NONONONONONONONONONONO!!
Your logic gives far too much power to the closed software vendors.
Used as a rule, it would allow nVidia, by virtue of it's closed-source driver, to squash desktop innovation, even in the presence of free alternatives from Intel and, potentially, ATI.
> Your logic gives far too much power to the closed software vendors.
> Used as a rule, it would allow nVidia, by virtue of it's closed-source driver, to squash desktop innovation, even in the presence of free alternatives from Intel and, potentially, ATI.
????? Sorry I don't get your reasoning at all. In this case XGL is the enabler.
> Used as a rule, it would allow nVidia, by virtue of it's closed-source driver, to squash desktop innovation, even in the presence of free alternatives from Intel and, potentially, ATI.
????? Sorry I don't get your reasoning at all. In this case XGL is the enabler.
>Sorry I don't get your reasoning at all. In this case XGL is the enabler.
My logic is simple:
If you wanted to create a rule that said "problem" technologies (like XGL) that happen to benefit from the presence of non-free drivers (like nVidias) should not be pursued, even in the real presence (or even the potential presence) of products that use free drivers, then you are allowing the non-free vendors, by virtue of their decisions not to free drivers, to squash promising technologies. Worse, you are punishing vendors whose drivers are free, especially if that freedom might translate at some point in some way to technical improvements.
My logic is simple:
If you wanted to create a rule that said "problem" technologies (like XGL) that happen to benefit from the presence of non-free drivers (like nVidias) should not be pursued, even in the real presence (or even the potential presence) of products that use free drivers, then you are allowing the non-free vendors, by virtue of their decisions not to free drivers, to squash promising technologies. Worse, you are punishing vendors whose drivers are free, especially if that freedom might translate at some point in some way to technical improvements.
dino,
If I saw that XGL had much promise other than gratuitous eyecandy, I might might be more inclined to agree with you.
If I saw that XGL had much promise other than gratuitous eyecandy, I might might be more inclined to agree with you.
One man's gratuitous eye-candy is another's enabling technology.
In fact, the more I think about it, your response is very similar to the response of IT professionals on seeing the original MacIntosh.
The Mac, as I recall, did manage to find a use.
The Mac, as I recall, did manage to find a use.
> My logic is simple:
Your 'logic' is so circuitous as to be meaningless. Talk about intelectual dishonesty.
Your 'logic' is so circuitous as to be meaningless. Talk about intelectual dishonesty.
A couple of points:
1)"One man's gratuitous eye-candy is another's enabling technology." - repeated for truth 2) XGL doesn't promote closed source drivers anymore than Linux promotes closed source BIOS'es. 3) There are a few disadvantages inherant to the design of XGL that are solved by AIXGL. AIXGL needs open source drivers. XGL will drive demand for AIXGL, which in turn will drive demand for open source drivers.
1)"One man's gratuitous eye-candy is another's enabling technology." - repeated for truth 2) XGL doesn't promote closed source drivers anymore than Linux promotes closed source BIOS'es. 3) There are a few disadvantages inherant to the design of XGL that are solved by AIXGL. AIXGL needs open source drivers. XGL will drive demand for AIXGL, which in turn will drive demand for open source drivers.
>Your 'logic' is so circuitous as to be meaningless. Talk about intelectual dishonesty.
Circuitous how? I think you're just shaking your head out of spite.
What is so difficult about the concept of not abandoning technologies just because they may prove useful to people with closed drivers? Heck -- We don't even have to go XGL with that. We could simply say X, as so many people use nVidia and ATI cards. No X, no closed video drivers. That'll show 'em, won't it?
Of course, we will also lose those open Intel drivers not to mention users who like something beyond the command line, but who cares?
Circuitous how? I think you're just shaking your head out of spite.
What is so difficult about the concept of not abandoning technologies just because they may prove useful to people with closed drivers? Heck -- We don't even have to go XGL with that. We could simply say X, as so many people use nVidia and ATI cards. No X, no closed video drivers. That'll show 'em, won't it?
Of course, we will also lose those open Intel drivers not to mention users who like something beyond the command line, but who cares?
> What is so difficult about the concept of not abandoning technologies just because they may prove useful to people with closed drivers?
Whoa now, don't go nuts on this. I never said that. XGL itself is fine, but I don't see it going anywhere until some of those drivers become GPL, and maybe not even then. I never said anything about abandoning, I'm just not convinced that it is the best way to proceed.
> users who like something beyond the command line
In case you think I'm all for the command line, maybe you'd better look here.
http://linux.jimfarnsworth.com/debian.html
Whoa now, don't go nuts on this. I never said that. XGL itself is fine, but I don't see it going anywhere until some of those drivers become GPL, and maybe not even then. I never said anything about abandoning, I'm just not convinced that it is the best way to proceed.
> users who like something beyond the command line
In case you think I'm all for the command line, maybe you'd better look here.
http://linux.jimfarnsworth.com/debian.html
jimf -
I know you're not a command line junkie. Just argument ad absurdum.
I agree that it is an interesting dilemma to know that most of the current beneficiaries of a new technology will be people using closed source drivers and, by extension, the vendors behind them.
I know you're not a command line junkie. Just argument ad absurdum.
I agree that it is an interesting dilemma to know that most of the current beneficiaries of a new technology will be people using closed source drivers and, by extension, the vendors behind them.
Here's an example of good use of XGL. It makes touch screens more natural to interact with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx9FgLr9oTk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx9FgLr9oTk
Xgl is useful!
on my small 9" screen most of my windows are almost fullsize. there is no room for a panel that would give me window tabs (and i don't like those tabs anyways) so the expose-like zooming out to show all windows is very helpful!
also very useful is how unresponsive windows go dark. a clear indicator that the application is stuck somewhere, and there is no point in mindlessly clicking on it, in hope that it comes back. i have not seen this kind of feedback before switching to Xgl.
wobbly is about the only thing disturbing, at least if you have it set to wobble for every window as it is being mapped. you need to turn that off or browsing menus will make you dizzy.
btw, i am using Xgl on an intel card, with a free driver. works just fine.
greetings, eMBee
also very useful is how unresponsive windows go dark. a clear indicator that the application is stuck somewhere, and there is no point in mindlessly clicking on it, in hope that it comes back. i have not seen this kind of feedback before switching to Xgl.
wobbly is about the only thing disturbing, at least if you have it set to wobble for every window as it is being mapped. you need to turn that off or browsing menus will make you dizzy.
btw, i am using Xgl on an intel card, with a free driver. works just fine.
greetings, eMBee
I'm for anything that makes for more efficient code.
I'm a user, not a programmer. I might even be considered a "power user" at some level. I have an intrinsic desire for efficiency.
I tried transparency, it made text harder to read. So the fact that XGL makes transparency easier is irrelevant to me. If it adds to code bloat, I consider it a complete negative.
My program windows are square. Rounded corners, blended colours, "eye candy", throw it all out. My desktop is square, my square windows are square, my buttons are square. If there is code bloat to making smooth, glassy, rounded stuff, I consider it a complete negative.
When a game or other graphical program runs, it may use ever bit of graphics speed available to this Gforce5600. Woopie. Is it smooth? Are the colours accurate? Is movement gradual, acceleration natural, pixelation invisible? Great, what else is there?
What I won't say is "what we have is fine", because F/OSS is about scratching itches. Just because it works for me doesn't mean it works for someone else, or anyone else.
So long as KDE has a theme called "KDE Classic 2" I can turn off all the putz I don't care to deal with and have my nice, square buttons and solid colours. I've downloaded and tried one of the XGL live CDs. Yeah, it works and it's pretty, but there are so many rounded corners wasting space that I don't like it. I know that has nothing to do with XGL, it has to do with the pointless bloat of the people who are demanding stuff like XGL just to drive their pointless bloat.
That's why my Debian install won't fit on a 100MB hard disk any more. Argh! Uphill! In the Snow! Both ways!
I'm a user, not a programmer. I might even be considered a "power user" at some level. I have an intrinsic desire for efficiency.
I tried transparency, it made text harder to read. So the fact that XGL makes transparency easier is irrelevant to me. If it adds to code bloat, I consider it a complete negative.
My program windows are square. Rounded corners, blended colours, "eye candy", throw it all out. My desktop is square, my square windows are square, my buttons are square. If there is code bloat to making smooth, glassy, rounded stuff, I consider it a complete negative.
When a game or other graphical program runs, it may use ever bit of graphics speed available to this Gforce5600. Woopie. Is it smooth? Are the colours accurate? Is movement gradual, acceleration natural, pixelation invisible? Great, what else is there?
What I won't say is "what we have is fine", because F/OSS is about scratching itches. Just because it works for me doesn't mean it works for someone else, or anyone else.
So long as KDE has a theme called "KDE Classic 2" I can turn off all the putz I don't care to deal with and have my nice, square buttons and solid colours. I've downloaded and tried one of the XGL live CDs. Yeah, it works and it's pretty, but there are so many rounded corners wasting space that I don't like it. I know that has nothing to do with XGL, it has to do with the pointless bloat of the people who are demanding stuff like XGL just to drive their pointless bloat.
That's why my Debian install won't fit on a 100MB hard disk any more. Argh! Uphill! In the Snow! Both ways!
> That's why my Debian install won't fit on a 100MB hard disk any more. Argh! Uphill! In the Snow! Both ways!
Now you're just showing your age :D
Now you're just showing your age :D
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
On the KDE side we definitely don't :P
Both Gnome and KDE have specifications for control(s) consistency, and a 'game plan' at least for the nest major release, but that isn't really going for any major 'breakthrough... As I said, 'evolution' is the key word here.