8 ms·

Bunch of rose-tinted hogwash, this. > It pioneered useful things like selecting an area of the screen and saving it directly to a file Pioneered? This was a s

Bunch of rose-tinted hogwash, this. > It pioneered useful things like selecting an area of the screen and saving it directly to a file Pioneered? This was a standard feature on Macs since January 1997. > It also showed how important compositing was on the desktop. No, that would be the Quartz and Quartz Extreme compositors released with Mac OSX 10.0-10.2 years prior. Compiz in the mid 2000s was a mixture of catching up to established ideas and a bunch of cute but useless visual wastes of time. It didn't pioneer anything except novelty display plugins and was quickly made obsolete when people realized that wobbly transition effects got very old very fast.

Aeolun 5y ago
Maybe for the people that could afford to own a mac. Compiz was something I, a student could use though. And for free. Maybe it’s more accurate to say it brought it into the reach of everyone with a bit of willingness to learn how to install an obscure OS (as opposed to having a ton of money)?
- javier2 5y ago
  Same. Apple products were so obnoxiously expensive.
dang 5y ago
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
MarkSweep 5y ago
Also the composited desktop Aero shipped in Windows Vista in late 2006, the same year as the initial release of Compiz. Aero was originally demoed at WinHEC 2003, for whatever that is worth. I don’t know how much these different compositing window managers inspired each other. To me it seems like there is some convergent evolution. Compositing window managers are obviously superior (no redrawing when moving windows). In the mid 2000s memory and graphics cards became cheap and powerful enough to make compositing viable.
- laumars 5y ago
  > Also the composited desktop Aero shipped in Windows Vista in late 2006, the same year as the initial release of Compiz. Opposite end of the year though since Compiz was released at the start of 2006. Compiz had seen significant development over that year (unlike Windows that only ships big graphical updates in new OS releases). So much so that by the time Vista was out it had already forked a mature competitor: Beryl. Plus Compiz wasn’t the first compositing Window on Linux either. Just arguably the best in that era. > I don’t know how much these different compositing window managers inspired each other. To me it seems like there is some convergent evolution. Technology almost always works that way. But it’s fair to note that Compiz did feel miles ahead of the competition at the time. Which I think is entirely down to its module system. Meaning anyone could build their own effects and not just wait for their OS developers to release a new service pack.
  - Symmetry 5y ago
    I always thought it was neat that the three main competitors in use then were Beryl, Aqua, and Aero - solid, liquid, and gas. Not sure if that was intentional or not.
nebula8804 5y ago
I'll have to agree with this. Compiz was great at drawing curious people in but I'd argue that Compiz helped many people write off Linux. It definitely made Windows XP look outdated but after you scratch the surface and adopt Linux, you discover a world of hurt whether it be bad drivers that break your desktop and throw you to a different run level, poor interoperability between the different components or just the general loss of trust when something catastrophic happens like the stupid USB stack corrupting your drive when you copy a simple file (yes this happened to me a few times over the years). Compiz resulted in tons of Youtube videos showing how cool it is but it was a gimmick. An OS is much more than cool looking visualizations and to that end during the time it was introduced, Linux was less stable and so people come for the looks and then left because its Linux. I still want to believe that Linux will become the king because we have lost so many freedoms over the years. As a result, every year I install a clean copy of Ubuntu on to my PC, start using it and then stop when I discover some serious bug. After that I put it back on the shelf and wait until next year. Maybe next year it will be better. This whole journey began during the Compiz era.
- laumars 5y ago
  I switched to Linux full time before Compiz took off and did so for exactly the reasons you cited the other platforms were superior: Linux was more stable, easier to reason with (as it was doing less magic behind the scenes), components worked better with each other since POSIX is designed for interoperability. Driver support was patchy at times, but then it wasn’t exactly easy on OSX (Apple: “if we don’t support you then you’re shit out of luck”) nor Windows (Microsoft: “we support everything. Albeit you’d have to manually find those drivers yourself so if your system doesn’t boot or network access fails then you’re shit out of luck”) either. At least Linux shipped 99% of what you needed on the install CD. For that reason, I’d almost always switch to Linux if ever I needed to debug a hardware problem in Windows or OSX. Though that’s less of an issue these days because I haven’t run Windows in ~15yrs and if you have a hardware problem on a modern MBP then you’re shit out of luck so there’s little point trying to debug it yourself.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    >I switched to Linux full time before Compiz took off and did so for exactly the reasons you cited the other platforms were superior: Linux was more stable, easier to reason with (as it was doing less magic behind the scenes), components worked better with each other since POSIX is designed for interoperability. Good for you that you had this experience but this is the standard talking point I have been hearing for 15 years. Yes if you are willing to put in the work Linux is more powerful than a closed source OS. However you forget that the primary job of the OS is to provide a stable platform to enable you to run applications. Instead you are ignoring this and praising other aspects of the OS that do not directly correlate to improvements for regular non IT end users. If I do not want to spend time fixing a broken config caused but a bug, I am out of luck. If I do not want to deal with poorly made system utilities that do not correlate to what the config files do then I am out of luck. If I want different components of the OS to have a unified design language so they work together I am out of luck(ex. Even today GNOME bundles a bunch of old garbage tools and expect them to be equivalent to their Windows/Mac counterparts, no thought is put into the usability and uniformity of these tools).
laumars 5y ago
Quartz looked nothing like Compiz. Comparing the two and saying Quartz was better massively misses the point of what Compiz was and what the OP discussed. If you want to argue that most of Compiz effects were overused and tacky then that’s a different issue; also an entirely subjective one.
tomxor 5y ago
Being first isn't everything, for instance Mac's "System" was not the first desktop GUI, but it was the most significant first for most users. Similarly compiz was important for the world beyond MacOS, while being utterly useless it attracted the attention of lots of kids like myself while also producing useful side-effects in the Linux ecosystem, and no doubt pushing desktop's outside of Linux. Compiz was indeed a pioneer, and also explored far more effects compared to MacOS X for better and worse - In fact I'm pretty sure Apple copied the 3D rotating desktop from compiz for a short time... not that it's a particularly imaginative effect, compiz just stumbled upon it first. ... so how about we stop being petty.

Aeolun 5y ago

Maybe for the people that could afford to own a mac. Compiz was something I, a student could use though. And for free. Maybe it’s more accurate to say it brought it into the reach of everyone with a bit of willingness to learn how to install an obscure OS (as opposed to having a ton of money)?

javier2 5y ago
Same. Apple products were so obnoxiously expensive.

dang 5y ago

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

MarkSweep 5y ago

Also the composited desktop Aero shipped in Windows Vista in late 2006, the same year as the initial release of Compiz. Aero was originally demoed at WinHEC 2003, for whatever that is worth. I don’t know how much these different compositing window managers inspired each other. To me it seems like there is some convergent evolution. Compositing window managers are obviously superior (no redrawing when moving windows). In the mid 2000s memory and graphics cards became cheap and powerful enough to make compositing viable.

laumars 5y ago
> Also the composited desktop Aero shipped in Windows Vista in late 2006, the same year as the initial release of Compiz. Opposite end of the year though since Compiz was released at the start of 2006. Compiz had seen significant development over that year (unlike Windows that only ships big graphical updates in new OS releases). So much so that by the time Vista was out it had already forked a mature competitor: Beryl. Plus Compiz wasn’t the first compositing Window on Linux either. Just arguably the best in that era. > I don’t know how much these different compositing window managers inspired each other. To me it seems like there is some convergent evolution. Technology almost always works that way. But it’s fair to note that Compiz did feel miles ahead of the competition at the time. Which I think is entirely down to its module system. Meaning anyone could build their own effects and not just wait for their OS developers to release a new service pack.
- Symmetry 5y ago
  I always thought it was neat that the three main competitors in use then were Beryl, Aqua, and Aero - solid, liquid, and gas. Not sure if that was intentional or not.

nebula8804 5y ago

I'll have to agree with this. Compiz was great at drawing curious people in but I'd argue that Compiz helped many people write off Linux. It definitely made Windows XP look outdated but after you scratch the surface and adopt Linux, you discover a world of hurt whether it be bad drivers that break your desktop and throw you to a different run level, poor interoperability between the different components or just the general loss of trust when something catastrophic happens like the stupid USB stack corrupting your drive when you copy a simple file (yes this happened to me a few times over the years). Compiz resulted in tons of Youtube videos showing how cool it is but it was a gimmick. An OS is much more than cool looking visualizations and to that end during the time it was introduced, Linux was less stable and so people come for the looks and then left because its Linux. I still want to believe that Linux will become the king because we have lost so many freedoms over the years. As a result, every year I install a clean copy of Ubuntu on to my PC, start using it and then stop when I discover some serious bug. After that I put it back on the shelf and wait until next year. Maybe next year it will be better. This whole journey began during the Compiz era.

laumars 5y ago
I switched to Linux full time before Compiz took off and did so for exactly the reasons you cited the other platforms were superior: Linux was more stable, easier to reason with (as it was doing less magic behind the scenes), components worked better with each other since POSIX is designed for interoperability. Driver support was patchy at times, but then it wasn’t exactly easy on OSX (Apple: “if we don’t support you then you’re shit out of luck”) nor Windows (Microsoft: “we support everything. Albeit you’d have to manually find those drivers yourself so if your system doesn’t boot or network access fails then you’re shit out of luck”) either. At least Linux shipped 99% of what you needed on the install CD. For that reason, I’d almost always switch to Linux if ever I needed to debug a hardware problem in Windows or OSX. Though that’s less of an issue these days because I haven’t run Windows in ~15yrs and if you have a hardware problem on a modern MBP then you’re shit out of luck so there’s little point trying to debug it yourself.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  >I switched to Linux full time before Compiz took off and did so for exactly the reasons you cited the other platforms were superior: Linux was more stable, easier to reason with (as it was doing less magic behind the scenes), components worked better with each other since POSIX is designed for interoperability. Good for you that you had this experience but this is the standard talking point I have been hearing for 15 years. Yes if you are willing to put in the work Linux is more powerful than a closed source OS. However you forget that the primary job of the OS is to provide a stable platform to enable you to run applications. Instead you are ignoring this and praising other aspects of the OS that do not directly correlate to improvements for regular non IT end users. If I do not want to spend time fixing a broken config caused but a bug, I am out of luck. If I do not want to deal with poorly made system utilities that do not correlate to what the config files do then I am out of luck. If I want different components of the OS to have a unified design language so they work together I am out of luck(ex. Even today GNOME bundles a bunch of old garbage tools and expect them to be equivalent to their Windows/Mac counterparts, no thought is put into the usability and uniformity of these tools).

laumars 5y ago

Quartz looked nothing like Compiz. Comparing the two and saying Quartz was better massively misses the point of what Compiz was and what the OP discussed. If you want to argue that most of Compiz effects were overused and tacky then that’s a different issue; also an entirely subjective one.

tomxor 5y ago

Being first isn't everything, for instance Mac's "System" was not the first desktop GUI, but it was the most significant first for most users. Similarly compiz was important for the world beyond MacOS, while being utterly useless it attracted the attention of lots of kids like myself while also producing useful side-effects in the Linux ecosystem, and no doubt pushing desktop's outside of Linux. Compiz was indeed a pioneer, and also explored far more effects compared to MacOS X for better and worse - In fact I'm pretty sure Apple copied the 3D rotating desktop from compiz for a short time... not that it's a particularly imaginative effect, compiz just stumbled upon it first. ... so how about we stop being petty.