>>From: Rovanion Luckey < [email protected] > >> >> I think it is very helpful for gnome-shell to have the effects turned off >> when it detects a video card is not capable of 3d acceleration due to these >> scenarios: old video card or no driver installed. >>
>The entire Gnome Shell UI is build using Clutter and it uses OpenGL to draw >everything. So basically, if you don't have a graphics card and a driver >that supports OpenGL you will not be able tu run Gnome Shell. Ok. So the option of using gnome 3' gnome-shell is not possible for older video cards I supposed, but the devs may have prepared a way to use a different shell for older video cards. >>This is only my opinion, effects must be trimmed down to only a few, not >> like compiz to avoid complexity. Compiz in my opinion is still not >> production ready, application compatibility must be the primary goal when >> developing effects for the gnome-shell, for example, if I cannot run 3d >> games while gnome-shell is the default DE, then it is a show-stopper, not to >> mention blender, CAD and other 3D applications. >> >From: Rovanion Luckey < [email protected] > >Compiz has been >production ready and used in distsributions for very long by >now. When stating about Compiz as to complex for the end user you might be > thinking about the Compiz Config Settings Manager which is a very feture > rich and complex configuration tool. You are right. My issues of using compiz, I think were isolated, so compiz is production ready for the rest of the population. >From: Rovanion Luckey < [email protected] > > If you feel baffled by the CCSM or feel that your grandmother will > probably not want to get into all that just for changing an animation you > might want to look into the Simple Compiz Config Settings Manager, which as > the name hints is a more simple approach to configuring Compiz. Now > admittedly it is not a revolution when it comes to design but it does the > job. > The point I'm trying to make is even tough the underlying architecture > is expandable and configurable in every way the user might want it does not > mean that the every day user has to face that interface. In fact there are > few situations in a modern Linux distributions where the user is required to > edit config files, well except of xorg.conf, which could be regarded as the > most direct way of configuration. The trick is hiding away the complexities > for the every day user but still having the configurability there for the > enthusiast. > The reason why it is important to ensnare the enthusiast is because that > is the very thing that shapes the Linux community. There are a few sets of > companies that hire have personnel working on various open source projects > that the end consumer ends up using, *tips his hat at the red one* , but > that does not diminish the importance of the community. > > So I would argue that it is important that Gnome Shell is extensible and > configurable because that is what will benefit "Linux" as a platform in the > long run. I might be confusing the way OSX and MS Windows handling of their respective graphical UIs and comparing it with gnome-shell when suggesting the need of simplicity. The difference is that gnome-shell was developed in an open manner while Aqua and Windows NT's graphical UIs were developed in a closed fashion, so the complexity of those interfaces only lies within their premises not to the public, while gnome-shell and other FOSS projects lies both the complexity and simplicity to the whole public at the same time. So you are also correct this time. But I need to consider that most of the gnome-shell's testers are not developers in the perspective of the gnome-shell. -Allan E. Registos
_______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
