<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Joe Terranova <<a href="mailto:joeterranova@gmail.com">joeterranova@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d">>> 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. </div><div class="Ih2E3d">> That's good, but why even include compiz in the first place? Doesn't it just > 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?) </div>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 [1]. 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 compiz. 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 [1] <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/30/1744232.shtml" target="_blank">http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/30/1744232.shtml</a> </blockquote></div> 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.