Re: Metacity, Mutter, GNOME Shell, GNOME-2.28

On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 20:23 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> 2009/3/30 Ted Gould <ted gould cx>:
> > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:07 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> >> So, basically, no I don't see a way that GNOME Shell coexists with
> >> Compiz other than as two separate shells for the GNOME desktop.
> >
> > And I think that coexistence is part of the problem with GNOME Shell
> > becoming the default GNOME interface.  Distributions need something that
> > can gracefully decline between a composited and a non-composited
> > environment.  Not saying that Compiz can do that today, but we
> > effectively get that with the combination of metacity and Compiz and
> > lots of nasty hacks.  But, overall it works.
> >
> > For a GNOME Shell like project to be successful it will need to have
> > either two backends or some sort of architecture that would allow for
> > GNOME Shell features to be integrated in other less featureful
> > shell-like tools.
> I don't get why that statement is true. For a GNOME Shell project to
> be successful, it hast to be freakin good.
> Mac OS X and Windows XP are way far more successful desktop
> environments than GNOME or KDE are, and they don't even have the
> notion of swappable windows managers, and if they do, none uses them.
> So what's your point here?

Swappable Window Managers isn't important.  Being able to have graceful
degradation down to non-composited environments is.  To be entirely
honest, some of these are problems of our own situation.  Neither Mac
nor Windows have to worry about shipping binary nvidia drivers either.
I'm not a fan of the situation, but we've solved this problem in the
past with swapping window managers.  I don't think that's the only way
to do it, but it's definitely the easiest today.

I'm not sure of all of the demo CDs out there, but I don't think that
almost all of them come up in non-composited environments on the vast
majority of hardware.  Having the demo be entirely different than what
you get when install seems like a really bad idea.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]