XGL poll question?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dek Aug 14, 2006 10:25 AM EDT |
Quoted:
Quoting: Much of the "oohs" and "aahs" in any Novell demo comes from the zoom, spin and wobble factor of XGL. I'm not sure whether this impresses CIO's, but it shouldn't. In some ways, I agree with this but it's still nice to know that Open source can do stuff like this. So here's the question: Regardless of the wow factor, is XGL useful or is it simply a resource hog that depends on non-free modules (nvidia or ATI)? Or is there a middle ground where it's not immediately useful but could be sometime? If useful, how? If not useful, where would you rather see desktop development resources going? Just my "'satiable curtiousity!" Don K. |
| jimf Aug 14, 2006 10:45 AM EDT |
> whether this impresses CIO's My experience tells me that CIO's are all too easly impressed by the wow factor... |
| SFN Aug 14, 2006 10:58 AM EDT |
I don't feel that it's useful. When I was first able to try it out, I did. Eventually I realized I wasn't using any of it's "features". Having said that, it has to at least be available. Unfortunately, we have to be able to say "we have that too" in order to be taken seriously. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 14, 2006 11:02 AM EDT |
I use it on my desktop and I am quite happy with it. The desktop feels a lot smoother and more responsive. There are still quite a few bugs and it definately needs to mature a bit. At the moment it's nothing more than a toy, but I think that in time, some people are going to do some wonderfull things with it. |
| jimf Aug 14, 2006 11:09 AM EDT |
> depends on non-free modules (nvidia or ATI) Until this issue is resolved, I think XGL is more of a problem than a solution for Linux. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 14, 2006 11:29 AM EDT |
XGL runs fine on Nvidia embedded, which is free (even without the macrovision code - but that's another story). |
| jsusanka Aug 14, 2006 11:39 AM EDT |
I run xgl on ati 7000 cards and it works great - is it slower than without yes - but I am using it everyday and find it usefull I do like the features and find very usefull for doing work. i.e transparencies. |
| dinotrac Aug 14, 2006 2:21 PM EDT |
jimf and SFN -- Impressing the CIOs is not a bad thing, and a little "WOW" is not a bad thing, either. After all, who would ever need PowerPoint (or, ahem, Impress) if there wer no place for "WOW"? |
| jimf Aug 14, 2006 2:56 PM EDT |
> Impressing the CIOs is not a bad thing, and a little "WOW" is not a bad thing, either. After all, who would ever need PowerPoint (or, ahem, Impress) if there wer no place for "WOW"? I think that the problem is that all too many CIOs are 'only' impressed by "WOW"... And, it it's only going to produce yet another lame presentation, then, who does need PowerPoint, or, Impress. |
| devnet Aug 14, 2006 6:50 PM EDT |
XGL worthless Functions and Features are dead. Improve useability...let's work on what we currently have not on what is the next big thing. Once we hit the sweet spot, then lets concentrate on the new thing. |
| jimf Aug 14, 2006 7:46 PM EDT |
> let's work on what we currently have not on what is the next big thing I'm all for the next killer app or function, but, we have no idea what that is, and probably won't, until it actually hits us over the head. XGL obviously done that yet. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 14, 2006 9:48 PM EDT |
@devnet: I'm sure people said the same thing about Linux when it just came out. Or GUI's in general. Or yet-another-scripting-language (i.e. Python), etcetera, etcetera. Let those who like (AI)XGL work on it while others try to find the current sweetspot. That's open source for you. If nothing else then (AI)XGL will improve accessibility and strengthen the cry for open source 3D drivers. |
| SFN Aug 15, 2006 4:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:Impressing the CIOs is not a bad thing, and a little "WOW" is not a bad thing, either. The question though was, is it useful? In what way is it useful to the someone who actually uses it to have a desktop that spins? Or even one that is pretty? |
| jimf Aug 15, 2006 4:42 AM EDT |
> even one that is pretty That's entirely possible with what we have now. |
| SFN Aug 15, 2006 4:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:That's entirely possible with what we have now. Yes it is and I really enjoy that feature. But is it useful? |
| jimf Aug 15, 2006 5:06 AM EDT |
> But is it useful? Absolutely, I'm heavily into graphics, so, my answer is biased. Still, desktop computing is mainly visual. As with any other environment, aesthetics make the experience more pleasant and increase productivity. |
| devnet Aug 15, 2006 5:52 AM EDT |
Usability problems are the easiest things to identify, but the hardest things to correct. The reason for this is that many programmers and coders today do things out of turn...they code their programs before they design how the user will interface with it. Imagine a web designer doing this...programming the site without sketching how the site should appear. Imagine car manufacturers building the car without giving any ergonometrics concerns a thought...yet that exactly what many open source programs do...they fly by the seat of their pants. If something confounds or confuses even a small handful of people...it's a problem. No you can't make everyone happy and there is NO perfect interface...even though we may never obtain perfection, we can pursue it to never lose sight of what it might be. |
| jimf Aug 15, 2006 6:36 AM EDT |
> never lose sight of what it might be. And there in lies the problem. As you said, 'they fly by the seat of their pants', with only a hint of an overall plan. One only has to look at Gnome and KDE to see the disparage in 'visions' that exist in GUI designs. In spite of that, the overall designs are pretty much based on the win95 paradigm. Development in desktop GUIs tends to build on successful past designs, evolution rather than anything really new. How much of this is because people don't like using an interface much outside their experience, I don't know. But, it is an important factor, and, I don't really see this changing. |
| SFN Aug 15, 2006 7:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:Development in desktop GUIs tends to build on successful past designs, evolution rather than anything really new. How much of this is because people don't like using an interface much outside their experience, I don't know. But, it is an important factor, and, I don't really see this changing. Along these lines it looks like SymphonyOS - and with it Mezzo - is dying. Not that I'm that fond of Mezzo but it IS different. Does anyone know of anybody picking up that torch? |
| devnet Aug 15, 2006 7:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:And there in lies the problem. As you said, 'they fly by the seat of their pants The first step in surpassing a problem is admitting and identifying that the problem exists. So we know that many open source projects fly by the seat o their pants. Now, usability improvements would demand that we do something about that...movements, including open source movements, wouldn't be successful without some organization and some usability. Since some is present, we know it can be done. Now we just have to do it. |
| jimf Aug 15, 2006 7:23 AM EDT |
> we know it can be done. Now we just have to do it. Don'cha just love glittering generalities... |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 15, 2006 8:33 AM EDT |
I think the Gnome HIG (Human Interface Guidelines) are actually a step in the right direction. Most patches I recieve for gnome hearts are HIG fixes (and translations, but I get those through Rosetta anyway). You may disagree with what the HIG specifies, but at least there is a set of guidelines for Gnome folk and they'll follow it. I don't think KDE has something similar but perhaps it's time they did. It would be different that the Gnome HIG but at least they'll have some rules to follow and check their work against, making for a more usable, accessible and uniform user experience. |
| jimf Aug 15, 2006 9:51 AM EDT |
> You may disagree with what the HIG specifies 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. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 15, 2006 12:09 PM EDT |
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? |
| herzeleid Aug 15, 2006 6:31 PM EDT |
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"? |
| jimf Aug 16, 2006 1:10 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| jimf Aug 16, 2006 1:17 AM EDT |
> "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. |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2006 2:26 AM EDT |
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. |
| jimf Aug 16, 2006 2:32 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2006 3:03 AM EDT |
>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. |
| jimf Aug 16, 2006 3:15 AM EDT |
dino, If I saw that XGL had much promise other than gratuitous eyecandy, I might might be more inclined to agree with you. |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2006 3:28 AM EDT |
One man's gratuitous eye-candy is another's enabling technology. |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2006 3:30 AM EDT |
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. |
| jimf Aug 16, 2006 3:52 AM EDT |
> My logic is simple: Your 'logic' is so circuitous as to be meaningless. Talk about intelectual dishonesty. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 16, 2006 5:51 AM EDT |
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. |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2006 6:26 AM EDT |
>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? |
| jimf Aug 16, 2006 6:47 AM EDT |
> 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 |
| dinotrac Aug 16, 2006 7:48 AM EDT |
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. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 18, 2006 11:10 PM EDT |
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 |
| mbaehrlxer Aug 20, 2006 12:47 PM EDT |
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 |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 21, 2006 7:08 PM EDT |
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! |
| jimf Aug 21, 2006 9:13 PM EDT |
> 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 |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!