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 feat

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.