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...
--
Sandman[.net]
|
|
