Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Compiz On Its Deathbed?

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Suzuran View Post
    I wonder if some masochist will create a Unity clone as a (set of?) Gnome-shell extension(s).
    I've seen a screenshot of such an extension ~ it was the Unity dock, and it looked pretty much the same as in Unity. however, i don't know how good it is really (cause i don't use Gnome-Shell).

    Comment


    • #22
      Compiz is not dead. It just moved house without telling anyone:

      This project exists only to maintain stable 0.9.7 branch. Compiz is an OpenGL compositing manager that uses GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap for binding redirected top-level windows to texture objects. It has a flexible plug-in system and it is designed to run well on most graphics hardware.


      Compiz is using the LaunchPad project name "compiz-core" because "compiz" was already taken by the Ubuntu packagers.

      A new release 0.9.7.0 is due within weeks and should debut in Ubuntu 12.04 beta-1.

      This all really should have been published on compiz.org, but smspillaz is so busy working on the new release that obviously he hasn't had time.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by LLStarks View Post
        Compiz has fallen hard from its Beryl and Fusion days.

        It used to be the face of the 3D Linux desktop.

        But we can't have it anymore since Gnome 3 and Unity make it impossible to use it.

        The ubuntu compiz devs killed it IMO by not keeping up with DE changes and poor coding.




        Compiz was retired from F17 last night (no last minute reprieves )

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by leigh123linux View Post
          Compiz was retired from F17 last night (no last minute reprieves )
          Why would you gloat about it? It was dropped due to lack of a maintainer, not publicly executed for the crime of "poor coding". Spare us the fatuous and inaccurate hyperbole.

          Sam deserves credit for his efforts. Yes, Compiz is currently not as polished as it could be and he well knows it; he evidently doesn't require tutting gossipers to tell him so. Yes, some better organisation and project management wouldn't go amiss. He's a young, very talented guy, learning on his feet, with a bright future to look forward to.

          Like ninez, I use Compiz 0.9 on Arch along with JACK and have similarly found it to be a better fit than GS or Cinnamon. The worry I have is that Compiz will become too close integrated with Unity/Ubuntu. Heres to hoping it remains essentially agnostic (one of its greatest assets).

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by una.szplodrmann View Post
            Why would you gloat about it? It was dropped due to lack of a maintainer, not publicly executed for the crime of "poor coding". Spare us the fatuous and inaccurate hyperbole.

            Sam deserves credit for his efforts. Yes, Compiz is currently not as polished as it could be and he well knows it; he evidently doesn't require tutting gossipers to tell him so. Yes, some better organisation and project management wouldn't go amiss. He's a young, very talented guy, learning on his feet, with a bright future to look forward to.

            Like ninez, I use Compiz 0.9 on Arch along with JACK and have similarly found it to be a better fit than GS or Cinnamon. The worry I have is that Compiz will become too close integrated with Unity/Ubuntu. Heres to hoping it remains essentially agnostic (one of its greatest assets).

            I was the owner/maintainer for the fedora compiz packages.


            The worry I have is that Compiz will become too close integrated with Unity/Ubuntu
            Too late, Sam IMO he killed compiz by making it rpm unfriendly .

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by leigh123linux View Post
              I was the owner/maintainer for the fedora compiz packages.

              Too late, Sam IMO he killed compiz by making it rpm unfriendly .
              Well, compiz isn't dead over here ~ but then again, I don't use Fedora

              By your bug report, clearly you knew how to fix the problem ~ why didn't you just submit a patch, then? (or even just create/use the patch yourself, when making your compiz packages?).

              I mean not every distro does things the same. (that being said, yeah, i agree it should be fixed)...But i still don't see that as a huge issue.... On Archlinux (as an example), i often have to modify sources/or export which version of python to use (python2 or python(3)... ). I don't see your packaging problem, being any bigger of a deal than that. It takes less than a minute to create and apply a patch, or write a fix using 'sed' to modify the 2 lines, mentioned in your report.

              cheers

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by leigh123linux View Post
                I was the owner/maintainer for the fedora compiz packages.
                Ahhh, I see.

                Originally posted by leigh123linux View Post
                Too late, Sam IMO he killed compiz by making it rpm unfriendly .
                What with Fedora comprising the totality of desktop linux development, and all that.

                Maybe Compiz will fizzle, maybe it won't. I'd say the large number of bug fixes committed recently is more telling than the doomsaying of an ex-packager.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by una.szplodrmann View Post
                  [...]
                  Heres to hoping it remains essentially agnostic (one of its greatest assets).
                  Well this is the very reason why it is "dying" i.e a compositor should be part of the desktop environment to be well integrated. That's why kwin and mutter (gnome-shell) are now used. Unity is in the same booth. Basically the idea of having a desktop agnostic window-manager and compositor failed.

                  That's how things turned out; which kinda makes sense. As for compiz it is not gong to "die" in the foreseeable feature i.e as long as it is used by Unity.

                  Yet another former fedora compiz maintainer (I stopped maintaining it back then because I moved on to GNOME3 where it does not really fit in anymore see above).

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by ninez View Post
                    Well, compiz isn't dead over here ~ but then again, I don't use Fedora

                    By your bug report, clearly you knew how to fix the problem ~ why didn't you just submit a patch, then? (or even just create/use the patch yourself, when making your compiz packages?).


                    I mean not every distro does things the same. (that being said, yeah, i agree it should be fixed)...But i still don't see that as a huge issue.... On Archlinux (as an example), i often have to modify sources/or export which version of python to use (python2 or python(3)... ). I don't see your packaging problem, being any bigger of a deal than that. It takes less than a minute to create and apply a patch, or write a fix using 'sed' to modify the 2 lines, mentioned in your report.

                    cheers

                    I did but upstream never responded.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by ninez View Post
                      Well, compiz isn't dead over here ~ but then again, I don't use Fedora

                      By your bug report, clearly you knew how to fix the problem ~ why didn't you just submit a patch, then? (or even just create/use the patch yourself, when making your compiz packages?).

                      I mean not every distro does things the same. (that being said, yeah, i agree it should be fixed)...But i still don't see that as a huge issue.... On Archlinux (as an example), i often have to modify sources/or export which version of python to use (python2 or python(3)... ). I don't see your packaging problem, being any bigger of a deal than that. It takes less than a minute to create and apply a patch, or write a fix using 'sed' to modify the 2 lines, mentioned in your report.

                      cheers

                      Try learning to read (perhaps your blind or just out to pick a fight, well fuck you to) or did you miss the patch on that report.



                      --- a/cmake/LibCompizConfigCommon.cmake
                      +++ b/cmake/LibCompizConfigCommon.cmake
                      @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ function (compizconfig_backend bname)

                      set_target_properties (
                      ${bname} PROPERTIES
                      - INSTALL_RPATH "${COMPIZCONFIG_LIBDIR}"
                      + INSTALL_RPATH "${CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX}/lib"
                      COMPILE_FLAGS "${${_BACKEND}_CFLAGSADD}"
                      LINK_FLAGS "${${_BACKEND}_LDFLAGSADD}"
                      )
                      @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ function (compizconfig_backend bname)

                      install (
                      TARGETS ${bname}
                      - DESTINATION
                      ${COMPIZ_DESTDIR}${COMPIZCONFIG_LIBDIR}/compizconfig/backends
                      + DESTINATION
                      ${COMPIZ_DESTDIR}${CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX}/lib/compizconfig/backends
                      )

                      if (NOT _COMPIZCONFIG_INTERNAL)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X