Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Gubo Dangle ] on Saturday 16 September 2006 20:57 \__
>> It happens that Roy Schestowitz formulated :
>>> Xgl / Compiz Motion Blur
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Demo of motion blur on a bleeding edge build, completely
>>> | unedited.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ln4xQhILs
>>>
>>> And that's a _low-quality_ video...
>> And there's a point to this feature?
I would have thought it obvious, since Gooey enhancements is pretty
much Vista's *only* selling point, and this video shows that XGL
already wipes the floor with Aero.
> One could, of course, find it sufficiently motivational when working
> on a butt-ugly desktop.
Apple gave the world Aqua, and kudos to them for that; they are one of
the few *true* innovators in commercial software. Since then, everyone
else has been playing catchup, and after 6 wasted years of trying,
Microsoft *still* can't pull off what we can in the FOSS community.
> http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/MyDeskTop-Jun-22-2005.gif
That's a more honest perspective of what you're actually getting in
terms of functionality, when you buy into Microsoft's
indoctrination. That's the picture people see when they remove their
rose-tinted glasses.
> Personally, I find that a visually-rich environment, much like good
> music, can make the overall experience much more enjoyable/tolerable
> and the final product better.
There's a place for all things, both minimal and maximal. I'd never
dream of running a server with wasteful eye-candy, or even have a
Desktop of *any* kind on a server, but equally I enjoy the glossy
visualisations of MythTV when relaxing with streaming multimedia.
With Linux you have those choices, and the ability to adapt system to
a fine-grained degree of functionality. I honestly cannot imagine any
business deploying a resource hog like Vista in a production
environment, with or without the eye-candy turned off. "Turned off" is
not the same thing as "uninstalled". It's there - it's hogging
resources (disk if nothing else) - it's one more exploitable element
facing the network - it's one more potential buffer overflow or
BSOD. If it wasn't there, it couldn't possibly be a liability. But of
course now we'll just hear a chorus "you're a freak if you think you
don't need a Desktop on a server" from the WinNuTs. They're clueless.
But then the monolithic design of Windows means that Microsoft
probably aren't lying when they make claims like "we cannot remove xyz
feature from Windows, because it's fundamental to the Operating
System". Witness IE for example, and compare that to the ease with
which I can add and remove the whole Compiz/XGL functionality from
this machine ... with just two packages @ 2.5MB. Could such a thing
even be possible with Aero under Vista? I seriously doubt it.
> I am convinced that many studies were conducted to support this
> hypothesis. Same chorus when it comes to field of view
> (e.g. multi-head displays), lighting conditions/brightness,
> daylight/visibility of nature, noise, presence of the opposite sex
> and so on.
I find it amusing that any Windows advocate can criticise the
development of visual enhancements in an OS, when the only thing
generating *any* interest in the forthcoming update to Windows, is
eye-candy.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
Beware the Penguin:
http://www.victorialodging.com/video/Never_Trust_A_Penguin.mpg
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
10:44:57 up 91 days, 11:01, 3 users, load average: 0.12, 0.04, 0.01
|
|
