Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical's Working On A Unity 2D Desktop

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by mat69 View Post

    They appear to be jumping on the "looks-nice"-train without knowing what they get themselves into.

    That right there describes the mentality of the majority of the new users coming to Ubuntu.

    Comment


    • #17
      Qt + OpenGL

      Isn't there a clean way to just base both the Unity2D and 3D on Qt, on a way that uses hardware acceleration when available? That would be a lot cleaner, if feasible!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
        The clutter version was dropped two months ago.
        You're right. I was thinking that Unity still uses Clutter, the toolkit, and just moved away from Mutter which is a window manager that uses Clutter for compositing.

        Unity’s toolkit is Nux.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by cl333r View Post
          Wait, but the gtk+ libs in 11.04 will be version 3.0?

          Anyway I hope rather sooner than later Canonical will take the bull by the horns and start working on improving the open-source graphics drivers rather than dancing around the problem by creating workarounds or fail-safe back-ends. Had it hired 2 years ago say 2/2/2 (thus 6) full-time devs on working on open-source drivers for amd/nvidia/intel respectively.
          hmm I donīt know about the nvidia drivers but the free ati and Intel drivers work well at least for compiz or mutter they work well. If the nouvou driver sucks? (I donīt know that but I would not be suprised) thats Nvidias fault nobody else. They did not give free sourcecode (3d) and not at least specs to build drivers. Because they donīt would loose anything (secrets) by releasing such specs (not specs how to clone the hardware, just to write drivers), they activily fight against the opensource/fs movement. I cant deny the writers of the drivers to make the driver blind, running against a wall bleeding till it falls if the head not breaks before. But I would not even see the needing of such drivers. If a company dont want to give free linux support, they should not get it for free. If they at some point become the worst choice for Linux they would sell less hardware and they have to pay the price for this unsocial behavier. Linux is today a stronger/more important brand/technologie then nvidias hardware, so there is no need for developing a free driver against the will of nvidia.

          Same point by arm. Now they are kind of lucky because windows 8 will support their plattform. But in next 1-2 years till this point they have no usable softwareconfiguration because of their secret-bulli-shit. I wanted such device because of its cheapness + 1080p + low consum + passiv... but without usable Linux I would never buy such stuff even if I have to through 50% akku-time away.
          Ok Android is ok for touchdevices. but for subnotebooks or netbooks or like they call it smartbooks android sucks like hell.

          I think thats not fair to companys like Intel and AMD which give their specs and or drivers free who pay such developers to support the bad companys so the users dont boykott their stuff because there are free drivers. So what do you learn when you give free your specs + drivers, you get nothing from it, but you have costs (loyers..., double driver development...)

          To Canonical and Unity. I donīt get the point to fork gnome 3.0 here at all. Gnome 3.0 is good, I could understand if they would make a own interessting theme and maybe one or 2 new tools, or if they tell what could be done better in gnome 3.0 If Ubuntu will as only distro this "fork" or this other gui, then it will not get the developers behind it what it needs. Ubuntu is a strong distribution in having a big community they developed as example the boot-script-thing like initd forgot the name ^^, ok we will see it more choice is not bad, so even if it suck we can swap to gnome 3.0 ^^

          Comment


          • #20
            For the record, Mark appears to be a big proponent of Qt.

            To Canonical and Unity. I donīt get the point to fork gnome 3.0 here at all. Gnome 3.0 is good, I could understand if they would make a own interessting theme and maybe one or 2 new tools, or if they tell what could be done better in gnome 3.0 If Ubuntu will as only distro this "fork" or this other gui, then it will not get the developers behind it what it needs. Ubuntu is a strong distribution in having a big community they developed as example the boot-script-thing like initd forgot the name ^^, ok we will see it more choice is not bad, so even if it suck we can swap to gnome 3.0 ^^
            Canonical has said that they don't like the direction Gnome 3 is taking (Gnome Shell). They haven't forked anything, Gnome 3 is intact - they just layer a different shell on top of it.

            Fork means taking the code, changing it and not contributing the changes back. This is not what's happening here. I don't know how you should call this (a divorce maybe?) but it's not technically a fork.

            Comment


            • #21
              Why Qt? Why not take advantage of the similar work already done, ie the Enlightenment netbook shell?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                Isn't there a clean way to just base both the Unity2D and 3D on Qt, on a way that uses hardware acceleration when available? That would be a lot cleaner, if feasible!
                Yes, it would.
                But Canonical claims that there is absolutely no accessibility on Linux and they are the heroes to provide it finally which – according to them – makes the Nux-based Unity necessary: http://kamikazow.wordpress.com/2011/...6/#comment-578 (J. Riddel is a Canonical employee)

                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                Why Qt? Why not take advantage of the similar work already done, ie the Enlightenment netbook shell?
                Maybe they realized that Qt is better.

                Comment


                • #23
                  How long before the 3D version of unity is built on QT too?

                  Makes a lot of sense given the development resources that are poured into QT, they are moving forward, and fast!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                    http://kamikazow.wordpress.com/2011/...6/#comment-578 (J. Riddel is a Canonical employee)

                    Maybe they realized that Qt is better.
                    Huahuahua, that link would explain that perfectly. Whoever is the manager for Unity has ADHD.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Misel View Post
                      I tried getting along with Unity but it didn't work out. Two friends of mine and I have yet to find out how to even configure that thing. The most ridiculous thing is the panel on the left part of the screen. I couldn't figure out how to move it to another place or better yet make it autohide.
                      the autohide (well something better: intelli-hide) is already working in 11.04 alpha. Works very nicely, but of course not for daily use yet

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Wyatt View Post
                        Am I the only one who thinks this is a terribly confusing name, given that Unity is also the name of a popular game dev platform (if you're on Windows or Mac for now)? Why was this sort of name collision allowed to happen?
                        i think the worst collisions are the names "windows" and "apples"

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X