On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 12:43, Oded Arbel wrote: > On Saturday 30 August 2003 10:02, John Rabkin wrote: > > Aaaah yes. The age old argument. I cannot understand for the life of me why > > some people are on a crusade to bog Linux down with eye-candy. A flashy > > interface is a sure sign of a weak underlaying system. Please show me a > > single instance were I am wrong. > > <snipped lots of smug, speratist remarks> > > your first assert is so completly wrong I cannot even start to address it. > where the heck did you come up with this BS ? > Just as a counter example: OS-X. > Your argument is basicly this - "They have a weak underlying system because > they have negligable market share". well - suprise, but so does Linux. > Except that OS-X has a very good underlying system, and last time I checked > has better desktop market share then linux (they second place only to M$). I > don't remember exact statistics, but I've read somewhere that of all the > people who bought their first computer in north america at 2001-2002, about > 50% were buying macs. I'd love to see Linux with these numbers. > > Fact: everybody loves eye-candy. Linux's Market share will grow with more > eye-candy as it had done so in the past. > Fact: two of the largest open source projects for Linux (and other OS) are > mostly about eye-candy (KDE, GNOME). > > The whole attitude of "We don't need to stinking GUI" is fine, as long as you > keep it to yourself. if your objective is to make Linux the best operating > system for your own special needs, then everything is fine - you probably > don't use X at all. > But maybe, just maybe, the point of the whole exercise is to make Linux the > best OS for everyone - and that means nice looking, _responsive_, stable > GUIs. >
I am running an AMD 1.3G laptop and The gui is quite responsive (as long as I am not working on the swap I admit), its actually far more responsive then winXp home in the same computer (running without any animation and the much lighter win2k desktop). And I am using GNOME, not a minimalistic desktop (Tried them, but didn't have time to learn how to configure my favorite features yet so I needed an easy to configure desktop for the moment). Even 2D acceleration wasn't that hard to configure. 3D was a bit harder, but not that much. Didn't take much less work on XP with its faulty driver. I am not saying there is no room for improvement on X, but its not as bad as you say. > Now, after deviating from the main issue for a while - here's my real point: I > don't care much for eye-candy in X. its nice to have, but less important then > getting a fast and stable graphical environment. X is blocking the way as its > so damn slow. its a CPU and Memory hog, and its design is so bad it makes it > very hard to extend its feature set to compete with other graphical > environments. > Example: only this year the ability to change resolution w/o restart was > included into X - this feature has been available on the major competitor's > OS for about 7 years now, and still this feature is not visible to most users > as there are no stable user end tools that take advantage of it. same with IIRC changing resolution without restart has been around for quite some time (Alt+Ctrl+key+/-). It doesn't change the desktop size, thats true (don't know about that, is that what you are referring to?) And at list for gnome there is the Display Geometry Switcher applet. I am missing the ability to change color depth on the fly, thats true, but not that much. > font anti-aliasing - very useful eye-candy, and people are still having > problems with it. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
