2 ms·

See what I said to your other reply. Compiz is a Big Thing when it comes to promoting Linux (especially Ubuntu) as an operating system. It's always said somethi

by unalone 18y ago

See what I said to your other reply. Compiz is a Big Thing when it comes to promoting Linux (especially Ubuntu) as an operating system. It's always said something to the effect of, "Do you like that Vista and OS X look fancy! Look at Ubuntu! We wobble your windows! We have a spinning cube!" I once reinstalled Linux just to try it out, because a blog post that I read said that it set the standard for all operating systems. Compiz is a big name, and it's stupid wasteful, and it gets preached. There are good Linux things, and the blog has actually focused on some of them before. But for every darling project that works well (say, Firefox), there are a ton that are either bloated (OpenOffice) or broken (Pidgin) or just wasteful (Compiz).

Tichy 18y ago
Some people care for compiz and spinning effects - and look at the market share of Apple... But I simply don't like your generalizations. I agree that efforts on effects would be better spent elsewhere - or at least they should do it right. Maybe if the compiz effects would actually look good and be useful, they would make people switch to Linux. I don't know, but you yourself admit to having tried Linux just because of compiz. So maybe it matters after all.
- unalone 18y ago
  Apple doesn't make wobbly windows! For the most part, they don't include effects without actual, right-there performance impact! I don't want to debate this here, because I've debated it far too many times, but the genie effect lets you see where your window's headed, the bouncing icon on the dock shows you what program needs your attention, and the only irrelevant special glitzy feature I've ever seen on my Mac was the ripple that Dashboard shows you when you add an app, and I have Dashboard disabled. Also? When Apple does add a feature, they have a team working on it, so that if somebody were to quit their job it wouldn't fall apart. Maybe if the compiz effects would actually look good and be useful, they would make people switch to Linux. I don't know, but you yourself admit to having tried Linux just because of compiz. So maybe it matters after all. No. You should not market an OS based on a pointless feature that adds nothing but strain. You should sell your OS on what it lets you do. For Linux, advertise the application repository, how easy that is. Advertise the multiple desktops. You probably know better than I do what's good in Linux. But don't advertise a feature that adds nothing functional, wastes graphic space, and apparently was dependent on one person anyway. That would be like when Apple released their "web clips" for Dashboard, if they hadn't actually added the clipping feature and had only added the feature that lets you pick what the clip looks like, and then touted that as a big feature.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    "You should not market an OS based on a pointless feature that adds nothing but strain." You said yourself that you consider the effects of OS X useful. So if that is true (a big IF in my opinion), then it follows that there could also be useful effects for Linux. That the compiz developers focussed on the wrong kind of effects doesn't invalidate effects in general. I never had the impression that compiz was hailed as the new killer feature of Linux, so I don't understand your enthusiasm for the article.
    - unalone 18y ago
      If you don't think OS X's effects are useful, provide counterexamples. I didn't say effects are invalidated. When did I say that? I said that "a pointless feature that adds nothing but strain" is something that should not be marketed, in the quote you took yourself. The guy who posted about why he liked Compiz made a good argument. He listed features that actually make sense to have. I think zoom should be built-in to an OS. I like the idea of the window-sorter that Compiz apparently has. But as somebody who casually reads Linux articles, the two things I hear are wobbly windows and spinny cube. Those are bad things to announce. The article is about Compiz. I don't know why you're trying to make this a discussion about effects in general. I never had the impression that compiz was hailed as the new killer feature of Linux, so I don't understand your enthusiasm for the article. I'm enthusiastic because I do have that impression. I read about it more than I read about any other Linux thing beyond the flurry of articles about what's-it, Oxygen, when KDE 4 came out. I might have that name wrong. Compiz is what people focus on. And I'm enthusiastic about this article because its point is that it should not be emphasized, and that a core OS feature shouldn't rely on one central guy.
      - Tichy 18y ago
        OK then, who is focussing on compiz - the Linux develors and Linux users, or the outsiders who write about Linux. I am guessing it is the latter, which again invalidates the articles point.
        18y ago

by unalone 18y ago

Tichy 18y ago

Some people care for compiz and spinning effects - and look at the market share of Apple... But I simply don't like your generalizations. I agree that efforts on effects would be better spent elsewhere - or at least they should do it right. Maybe if the compiz effects would actually look good and be useful, they would make people switch to Linux. I don't know, but you yourself admit to having tried Linux just because of compiz. So maybe it matters after all.

unalone 18y ago
Apple doesn't make wobbly windows! For the most part, they don't include effects without actual, right-there performance impact! I don't want to debate this here, because I've debated it far too many times, but the genie effect lets you see where your window's headed, the bouncing icon on the dock shows you what program needs your attention, and the only irrelevant special glitzy feature I've ever seen on my Mac was the ripple that Dashboard shows you when you add an app, and I have Dashboard disabled. Also? When Apple does add a feature, they have a team working on it, so that if somebody were to quit their job it wouldn't fall apart. Maybe if the compiz effects would actually look good and be useful, they would make people switch to Linux. I don't know, but you yourself admit to having tried Linux just because of compiz. So maybe it matters after all. No. You should not market an OS based on a pointless feature that adds nothing but strain. You should sell your OS on what it lets you do. For Linux, advertise the application repository, how easy that is. Advertise the multiple desktops. You probably know better than I do what's good in Linux. But don't advertise a feature that adds nothing functional, wastes graphic space, and apparently was dependent on one person anyway. That would be like when Apple released their "web clips" for Dashboard, if they hadn't actually added the clipping feature and had only added the feature that lets you pick what the clip looks like, and then touted that as a big feature.
- Tichy 18y ago
  "You should not market an OS based on a pointless feature that adds nothing but strain." You said yourself that you consider the effects of OS X useful. So if that is true (a big IF in my opinion), then it follows that there could also be useful effects for Linux. That the compiz developers focussed on the wrong kind of effects doesn't invalidate effects in general. I never had the impression that compiz was hailed as the new killer feature of Linux, so I don't understand your enthusiasm for the article.
  - unalone 18y ago
    If you don't think OS X's effects are useful, provide counterexamples. I didn't say effects are invalidated. When did I say that? I said that "a pointless feature that adds nothing but strain" is something that should not be marketed, in the quote you took yourself. The guy who posted about why he liked Compiz made a good argument. He listed features that actually make sense to have. I think zoom should be built-in to an OS. I like the idea of the window-sorter that Compiz apparently has. But as somebody who casually reads Linux articles, the two things I hear are wobbly windows and spinny cube. Those are bad things to announce. The article is about Compiz. I don't know why you're trying to make this a discussion about effects in general. I never had the impression that compiz was hailed as the new killer feature of Linux, so I don't understand your enthusiasm for the article. I'm enthusiastic because I do have that impression. I read about it more than I read about any other Linux thing beyond the flurry of articles about what's-it, Oxygen, when KDE 4 came out. I might have that name wrong. Compiz is what people focus on. And I'm enthusiastic about this article because its point is that it should not be emphasized, and that a core OS feature shouldn't rely on one central guy.
    - Tichy 18y ago
      OK then, who is focussing on compiz - the Linux develors and Linux users, or the outsiders who write about Linux. I am guessing it is the latter, which again invalidates the articles point.
      - 18y ago