Hey, we do have a compositor in Metacity. It's not really ready for prime
time-- there are a few remaining bugs (mainly, that on startup it makes some
windows 100% transparent until the next workspace switch and that sometimes
it loses minimised windows so that you have to search around for them).
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 22:42 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
> Would it not be possible to have a really simple compositing manager in
> Metacity? This seems much more in tune with Metacity's remit than
> anything else (perhaps drop shadows and a nice minimise animation are
> the only two things I would i
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> That is just one example, but it seems to me that Metacity wasn't
> designed with flashy graphical effects in mind. One has to wonder: Is
> the effort required to make Metacity's compositing as good as Compiz
> greater or smaller than making Compiz as usable and mature as
>
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 20:27 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Assuming that bias, there's no real point having two ways to implement
> the one concept of workspace, instead you just want a flag for whether
> windows overlap...
Yawn.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2002-April/m
On 23 Oct 2006 22:17:32 +0200, Soeren Sandmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Framework for effects
>
> Current metacity has hooks for some events, such as minimization and
> unminimization. More should be added, but it is not always trivial
> to get right when windows can be closed and disap
I'm still waiting for the day when someone implements a compiz plugin
that maps workspaces to non-orientable surfaces. A mobius strip seems
like a good one. Or surfaces of nonzero genus, like a torus or
something. And of course, no reason to confine ourselves to a pathetic
three dimensions. Ima
Dan Winship wrote:
> Compiz could still display the window on both cube faces, but the EWMH
> doesn't provide any way of explaining that state to anyone else, so
> other EWMH-based tools like the pager would see the window as being on
> only one face at a time (and would show it as being truncated
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 18:32 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Dan Winship wrote:
> > If compiz used workspaces instead of viewports, you wouldn't be able to
> > have a window wrapped around an edge of the cube and thus partially
> > visible on two different sides.
>
> Just not true, afaik - that's
Dan Winship wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 17:54 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>> Owen was showing me FC6 this morning, and it does seem to work out
>> nicely having metacity handle the old video hardware and compiz handle
>> the new, with a simple toggle between them. The only real glitch in
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 18:19 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 17:54 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Owen was showing me FC6 this morning, and it does seem to work out
> > nicely having metacity handle the old video hardware and compiz handle
> > the new, with a simple toggle be
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 17:54 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Owen was showing me FC6 this morning, and it does seem to work out
> nicely having metacity handle the old video hardware and compiz handle
> the new, with a simple toggle between them. The only real glitch in it
> was that compiz uses
der it
higher-value to make some of the key objects (window, display) opaque
instead of exposing their fields; this would help clarify how all the
code interrelates.
> More generally, I think anybody picking up the metacity compositor
> should be prepared to change all parts of metacity t
The metacity GL compositor was intended to:
- move towards the "3D desktop"
- be a technology demo with a focus on cool effects
But given those two gaols, compiz is clearly better than the metacity
compositor.
So I think that if anybody wanted to pick up the metacity compositor,
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>> On 10/4/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The effort required to add eye candy effects to metacity is much
>>> smaller, in my opinion, than the effort required to make compiz a good,
>>> usable window manager. Most of the effects code
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 17:51 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> Ritesh Khadgaray wrote:
> >
> > Tried metacity compositor. affects look cleaner than compiz except for
> > one small thing : all windows look blue :(
> >
>
> I don't think there's a
Ritesh Khadgaray wrote:
>
> Tried metacity compositor. affects look cleaner than compiz except for
> one small thing : all windows look blue :(
>
I don't think there's any expectation that the current code in CVS is
working, though I
effort for 2D stuff like
> minimize animations, drop shadows, etc. Think xrender rather than opengl.
>
> But, I have not really been involved in the conversations about it and
> can't say I have a deep understanding.
>
> Havoc
Tried metacity compositor. affects look clea
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The effort required to add eye candy effects to metacity is much
>> smaller, in my opinion, than the effort required to make compiz a good,
>> usable window manager. Most of the effects code is likely to be
>> reusable in
On 10/4/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The effort required to add eye candy effects to metacity is much
> smaller, in my opinion, than the effort required to make compiz a good,
> usable window manager. Most of the effects code is likely to be
> reusable in metacity and KWin; compiz ma
Frederic Crozat wrote:
> From the feedback we got during Mandriva 2007.0 beta test, people got
> busted by bugs which was been fixed in either kwin or metacity, mainly
> on focus stealing.
Yeah, the compiz and metacity hackers got together at GUADEC and
everyone agreed that it would be a great ide
Am Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:48:00 -0500
schrieb Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:36 +0200, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> Why don't we just add the required features to Metacity?
>
>From what I´ve learned by integrating compiz into enlightenment e17, I
would say it´s easier to
On 10/3/06, Marco Cabizza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciao,
>
> Il giorno mar, 03/10/2006 alle 18.33 -0500, Travis Watkins ha scritto:
> > Does compiz work without a 3D card? If not it's worthless as anything
> > but a power user addon.
>
> This is exactly something I was thinking of a cou
Le mercredi 04 octobre 2006 à 10:34 +0200, Xavier Bestel a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 09:44 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
> > The problem is that 17" TFT screens with 1280x1024 in dualhead setups
> > are also becoming quite common. Given the limitation of ATI R200 and
> > R300 cards, which have a
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 09:44 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
> The problem is that 17" TFT screens with 1280x1024 in dualhead setups
> are also becoming quite common. Given the limitation of ATI R200 and
> R300 cards, which have a maximum 3D framebuffer of 2048x0248, it's
> impossible to use dualhead in
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 19:47 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> Very few desktop cards don't have 3D capabilities, but yes its a
> possible issue. There are ways to address it like better software
> fallbacks though. Based on reaction to Xgl/Compiz from users and in
> trade press, it is definitely more t
On 10/3/06, Kristian Høgsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wether or not we want a composited desktop is a different topic, but I
> think the general consensus is that we do, as long as there's an
> option to fall back to a legacy desktop (that is, a non-composited
> desktop).
So does this mean su
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 21:30 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> JP Rosevear wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 18:33 -0500, Travis Watkins wrote:
> >> Does compiz work without a 3D card? If not it's worthless as anything
> >> but a power user addon.
> >
> > Very few desktop cards don't have 3D capabilit
On 10/3/06, Travis Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does compiz work without a 3D card? If not it's worthless as anything
> but a power user addon.
This is orthogonal to the compiz vs. metacity discussion. Both
compositors have exactly the same requirements to the underlying stack
(X.org and
Ciao,
Il giorno mar, 03/10/2006 alle 18.33 -0500, Travis Watkins ha scritto:
> Does compiz work without a 3D card? If not it's worthless as anything
> but a power user addon.
This is exactly something I was thinking of a couple hours ago. Maybe
compiz should be able to work EVEN WITHOUT t
JP Rosevear wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 18:33 -0500, Travis Watkins wrote:
>> Does compiz work without a 3D card? If not it's worthless as anything
>> but a power user addon.
>
> Very few desktop cards don't have 3D capabilities,
More than you think: OLPC, thin clients, old machines, etc. May
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 19:54 -0400, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not sure how lisp like configuration equates with something that
> > exposes all its settings in gconf and has a dbus plugin for remote
> > control. gnome-xgl is a settings gui that is fairly generic (except for
> > enabling Xgl on
Em Qua, 2006-10-04 às 01:29 +0200, Chipzz escreveu:
> This is very much not a detail, but the last time I tried compiz (which
> was on ubuntu dapper), it lacked *ALL* of the keybindings to maximize,
> minimize, etc windows. Certainly not a "minor detail".
>
It's quite possible that you tried an e
> I'm not sure how lisp like configuration equates with something that
> exposes all its settings in gconf and has a dbus plugin for remote
> control. gnome-xgl is a settings gui that is fairly generic (except for
> enabling Xgl on suse), although it could use a little UI love.
Compiz may not b
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 18:33 -0500, Travis Watkins wrote:
> Does compiz work without a 3D card? If not it's worthless as anything
> but a power user addon.
Very few desktop cards don't have 3D capabilities, but yes its a
possible issue. There are ways to address it like better software
fallbacks t
another aka "I
clicked on the pager and all of my windows disappeared!" model. But
Kristian's "plane" plugin provides a slightly different interface. Will
that turn out to be better than the cube? Maybe. It's too early to tell.
Some day we'll want the "boring com
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 01:29 +0200, Chipzz wrote:
> This is very much not a detail, but the last time I tried compiz (which
> was on ubuntu dapper), it lacked *ALL* of the keybindings to maximize,
> minimize, etc windows. Certainly not a "minor detail".
They all work.
-JP
--
JP Rosevear <[EMAIL P
Does compiz work without a 3D card? If not it's worthless as anything
but a power user addon.
--
Travis Watkins
http://www.realistanew.com
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-de
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 18:53 -0400, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Is there really any objective reason why Compiz shouldn't be at least
> > considered as a potential successor to Metacity?
>
> Because it does not benefit from a long history of development, testing and
> fixes for crucial window manag
This is very much not a detail, but the last time I tried compiz (which
was on ubuntu dapper), it lacked *ALL* of the keybindings to maximize,
minimize, etc windows. Certainly not a "minor detail".
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, [UTF-8] Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On 10/3/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 18:53 -0400, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Is there really any objective reason why Compiz shouldn't be at least
> > considered as a potential successor to Metacity?
>
> Because it does not benefit from a long history of development, testing and
> fixes for crucial window manag
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:48 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:36 +0200, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> > On 10/3/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Realistically, compiz is unlikely
> > > ever to be accepted by either project, because it's a chimera. So why
> > > are we
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:34 -0700, Rob Adams wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:25 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > It would be nice if you could back up these claims with examples of
> > such missing details. Or even better, file bugs so we can get them
> > fixed. There is a component for comp
> Is there really any objective reason why Compiz shouldn't be at least
> considered as a potential successor to Metacity?
Because it does not benefit from a long history of development, testing and
fixes for crucial window management behaviour, and gives everyone terrible,
vomitous flashbacks t
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:36 +0200, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> Why is it a chimera, because the GNOME dependent modules are optional?
> That makes no sense to me. I rather see this as Compiz' biggest
> strength, since it encourages code sharing and cooperation (as well as
> experimentation). Is there
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 00:36 +0200, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> On 10/3/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Realistically, compiz is unlikely
> > ever to be accepted by either project, because it's a chimera. So why
> > are we dumping so much effort into it?
>
> Why is it a chimera, because
On 10/3/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why bother when both the GNOME and KDE projects already have excellent
> window managers? I don't understand this idea of writing a whole new
> window manager just to add eye candy. There's nothing about compositing
> that requires a complete rew
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:34 -0700, Rob Adams wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:25 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > It would be nice if you could back up these claims with examples of
> > such missing details. Or even better, file bugs so we can get them
> > fixed. There is a component for comp
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:25 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> It would be nice if you could back up these claims with examples of
> such missing details. Or even better, file bugs so we can get them
> fixed. There is a component for compiz in the freedesktop.org
> bugzilla:
>
> https://bugs.free
On 10/3/06, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 21:18 +0100, Toby Smithe wrote:
>
> > I had a feeling this would be the case, and I doubted inclusion as soon
> > as I sent off the e-mail. I don't want a Compiz clone, so I probably
> > think that doing something new is the b
d a means to that end, rather than a goal in its own
right. My hope is that once we have nvidia and ATI drivers with the
necessary indirect rendering support that the metacity compositor will
take off more (and we need at some point to make it so that the metacity
compositor can autodetect support
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 23:00 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
> Toby Smithe wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 01:33 +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:
> >>So, can the metacity compositor link against something else - i.e. a
> >> compiz backend? - or is it just stalled ?
> >
&
Toby Smithe wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 01:33 +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:
>> So, can the metacity compositor link against something else - i.e. a
>> compiz backend? - or is it just stalled ?
>
> Well, I know nothing of how it currently works, but I do believe tha
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=352520
Cheers,
Sylvain
2006/10/2, Toby Smithe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 01:33 +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:
> > Hello *,
> >
> > the question's simple. "Where is the Metacity Compositor
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 01:33 +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:
> Hello *,
>
> the question's simple. "Where is the Metacity Compositor?"
>
> It seems it compiles against libcm which has no "meaningful" CVS
> commits since May, and therefore it
Hello *,
the question's simple. "Where is the Metacity Compositor?"
It seems it compiles against libcm which has no "meaningful" CVS
commits since May, and therefore it's not a really reliable lib, and in
this tower of babel of compositing man
55 matches
Mail list logo
