Metacity as a compositing manager

[Dylan McCall]

Another thing worth noting is that Ubuntu's /default/ effects via Compiz
are very modest. In fact, they provide the same general features as
Metacity's compositor does by default with about a quarter the standards
compliance. (A stand-out example for standards compliance being the fact
that GIMP's utility windows are totally dysfunctional under Compiz but
work fine with Metacity).
Metacity, when we filter in its elegant behaviour, is far prettier than
Compiz even if it does just give us shadows and a fancy window switcher.

Further, the fact is half of Compiz's effects are entirely out of scope
for a window manager and rely on horrible, kludgey, unsightly
workarounds. All of Metacity's effects are in scope and only exist if
they're going to work consistently. Everything else, for example fancy
window previews on the window list applet, can and should be implemented
by the individual child applications. This is because the window manager
is not the only thing capable of pretty visual effects!

I think users get confused when they switch between Compiz and Metacity,
because the two have profoundly different feels, and in some cases
different key bindings. Metacity uses workspaces, while default Compiz
uses viewports (and a different number, if I remember right). One
follows the extended window manager hints spec to precision, another has
quirks.
Because of that, switching the window manager should not be considered
standard operation. I definitely don't think it is acceptable to dump it
as a prominently displayed option as if it is something user friendly to
do.

So, I for one strongly recommend that Ubuntu migrates back to Metacity
by default. Here's another reason:

One obvious next step in GNOME's evolution as a desktop environment is
the more rigid integration of the window manager with everything else.
For example, GNOME-Shell is based on a heavily modified Metacity. In the
future a lot of cool stuff will depend on Metacity (or whatever it comes
to be called later on). It would be a shame to miss it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20090209/9215fe19/attachment.sig>