In article <%4iri.6817$By5.3630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
7 <website_has_email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
>
> > In article <6257798.jtl17FkbWk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> >>> Yeah, but showcasing Beryl isn't directly rare for Linux advocates in
> >> >>> general...
> >>
> >> The problem is that the wrong *features* are being demonstrated. See my
> >> previous post on this (with a video). Videos are sometimes made to
> >> impress, where visuals take over pragmatism. Fair enough, no?
> >
> > Sure - I was just commenting that the only advocacy point was a
> > useless visual, not some useful feature of Linux/Beryl.
> >
> >> >> I don't see a lot wrong with showcasing Beryl. Just because it isn't
> >> >> 'useful' doesn't mean it's not worthwile. I still get a kick out of
> >> >> eye-candy.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > So Sandman thinks the little genie effect on minimising a window is
> >> > useless?
> >> >
> >> > So why does OSX do it?
> >>
> >> Oh yeah... another example of hardware-accelerated effect that mimics the
> >> idea of minimisation with animation (going back as far as Windows 98, if
> >> not further). Did you know that Beryl does not have it enabled/installed
> >> out of the box because Apple thinks it's Hollywood? It has a patent on
> >> genie effect.
> >
> > Plus, the genie effect isn't hardware accelerated. It has been in OSX
> > since the release.
> >
> > Well, ok, maybe it's hardware accelerated now...
>
> That proves you are an appil retard.
I can't take that in any other way than as a compliment. And I would
like to take the opportunity to thank you for not being a OSX user.
--
Sandman[.net]
|
|
