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.
|
|
