Metacity as a compositing manager
danny.piccirillo at ubuntu.com
Mon Feb 9 21:14:00 UTC 2009
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Joe Terranova <joeterranova at gmail.com>wrote:
> >> As it is, compiz is tried, and Ubuntu falls back on Metacity if it
> >> doesn't work. So if they don't have the "hardware", they'll use
> >> Metacity.
> > That's good, but why even include compiz in the first place? Doesn't it
> > take up extra space that could be used for something more useful (isn't
> > there a problem with keeping Ubuntu small enough to fit onto a CD?)
> Compiz doesn't actually take up very much space from what it looks.
> From a cursory look at package sizes, a few megs.
> I agree that Compiz is useless. But it does turn heads. When I do
> presentations, I always show it. It looks cool. I agree with
> Shuttleworth that Linux needs to be gorgeous . Ubuntu needs the
> cool factor in order to compete with other OSes. Is it vain? Silly?
> Useless? yes. But I've gotten people to try Ubuntu by showing them
> On the other hand, I'd be for letting people choose whether to enable
> compiz on install, instead of waiting until they startup the machine
> and go to appearance. Novice users might never know there's a way to
> turn off the fancy effects.
> Joe Terranova
>  http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/30/1744232.shtml
I also agree that Ubuntu needs to look great but i don't think that the
default compiz settings offer much more than metacity. Yes, compiz IS really
cool, and it's great to show off, but you can easily isntall it like
everyone did before it came with Ubuntu. Having it available is no less
impressive. I guess space might not be such a huge issue, but it still seems
unecessary to support. How much does it slow down the system? I think speed
is as important as looks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss