Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Jan 2007 23:24 UTC
Linux At OSNews, I try to bring to attention smaller Linux distributions that try to be different, such as SymphonyOS, or more recently, Elive. Today, I want to introduce you to the LG3D-LiveCD, a distribution using Sun's Looking Glass desktop environment. Version 3 was released yesterday: "The new release features lg3d release 1.0, the possibility to install lg3d-livecd to an USB device and an experimental harddisk installer."
Order by: Score:
Thanks Thom
by archiesteel on Fri 5th Jan 2007 23:56 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

This is what OSNews does best, introducing us to stuff we might otherwise have missed. I knew that LG had come out, but I had no idea someone had released a Linux LiveCD with it (though it makes perfect sense).

I will download it and try it...just out of curiosity, has anyone here tried it yet? How is the performance, compared to Beryl for example? (Yes, I know they're two completely different things, but I was wondering how smooth this will feel on my middle-aged machines...)

Reply Score: 5

v Too slow
by Joe User on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:10 UTC
RE: Too slow
by vimh on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:43 UTC in reply to "Too slow"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

I don't know about that. I downloaded LG onto my home desktop and it ran well enough. I certainly would not call it unusable, heavy or slow. I'll have to play with it more to see if I actually find it useful.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Too slow
by fffffh on Sat 6th Jan 2007 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Too slow"
fffffh Member since:
2006-01-04

You mean, to fat.

$java -version
java version "1.5.0_08"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_08-b03)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_08-b03, mixed mode, sharing)

cat HelloWorldApp.java
class HelloWorldApp {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World!"); // Display the string.
while(true);
}
}
$javac HelloWorldApp.java
$java HelloWorldApp
Error occurred during initialization of VM
Could not reserve enough space for object heap
Could not create the Java virtual machine.

$ulimit -a ##restricted user/environment
core file size (blocks, -c) 0
data seg size (kbytes, -d) 240000
..............
max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 40000
max memory size (kbytes, -m) 120000
..............
stack size (kbytes, -s) 8192
...........
max user processes (-u) 60
virtual memory (kbytes, -v) 200000
file locks (-x) 10

$su non_restricted_user
Password:
$java HelloWorldApp &
[1] 9811
java HelloWorldApp

$ps axu | grep -E "PID|java"
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
non_restricted_user 9729 91.7 1.2 260412 9404 pts/14 Rl+ 03:38 0:22 java HelloWorldApp

VSZ=260MB (!) (VSZ virtual memory size of the process)

N x java_HelloWorld how much memory will Eat ?

And about speed, is almost as fast as C++ .

Edited 2007-01-06 02:02

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Too slow
by robinh on Sat 6th Jan 2007 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too slow"
robinh Member since:
2006-12-19

Umm... isn't there an infinite loop in your program? If you expact to be able to conclude something meaningful from this little test, you're sadly mistaken. Reminds me of the age-old saying: "crap in, crap out"

--Robin

Reply Score: 2

RE: Too slow
by chekr on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:52 UTC in reply to "Too slow"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

"It's Java crap. It's unusable it's too heavy and too slow."

Would you like to follow up on your dribble with some factual detail or are you just dribbling out a line you read in the Daily Telegraph...a line written by some inept reporter who hasnt even worked in the industry but feels they have an in depth knowledge due to the fact they use a Dell GX280 at work and leach opinions from the comments posted to Slashdot.

If however you have the expertise to explaine to us why "It's Java crap" please do so.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Too slow
by Clinton on Sat 6th Jan 2007 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Too slow"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Not that I agree with the original poster, but I do consider Java "too slow" when it comes to programming.

Java requires too much code to do even the simplest task (like opening a file and reading text out of it or reading input from the command line). At least that was the case the last time I really used Java, which was a few years ago.

I have no comment really regarding Java's speed. Some Java applications are very slow while others, like Eclipse, are quite nice. I guess it comes down to the skill of the programmer writing the code.

I'm downloading the live CD right now, so I will refrain from commenting on it until I have actually seen it. I suggest the original poster do the same.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Too slow
by mrcool on Sat 6th Jan 2007 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too slow"
mrcool Member since:
2006-08-23

I realize this is getting off topic, however I just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this.

"Java requires too much code to do even the simplest task (like opening a file and reading text out of it or reading input from the command line). At least that was the case the last time I really used Java, which was a few years ago."

Out of all the languages I have used, while definitly not the fastest, Java is quite well designed in most aspects. It's stream & reader classes are very nice for anything from simple file reading all the way to much more complex operations. And complaining that it requies too much code to read input from the command line? It's practically the same as in C/C++.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Too slow
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Jan 2007 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Too slow"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""Would you like to follow up on your dribble with some factual detail or are you just dribbling out a line you read in the Daily Telegraph..."""

I have a question. If Java isn't slow, why do Java advocates spend so much of their time carefully explaining why it isn't really slow?

Just wondering.

Edited 2007-01-06 19:01

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Too slow
by Adamal on Sat 6th Jan 2007 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too slow"
Adamal Member since:
2005-07-06

"I have a question. If Java isn't slow, why do Java advocates spend so much of their time carefully explaining why it isn't really slow? "

When Java originally came out, it's graphics libraries were notoriously slow. There were also other issues, but that one affected what people felt the most. Ever since that time Java has been trying to shake that image.

Reply Score: 1

slow and choppy on fast hardware.
by re_re on Sat 6th Jan 2007 01:14 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

The system requirements rival vista. (I don't know what is posted on sun's website, but read more to see what i mean)
I downloaded this and ran it on my athlon64 with an mx4000 video card and 1.5 gigs of ram and it was not even close to usable, it was really choppy.

I then popped the cd into the drive of my prescott 3.2ghz box with an nvidia 7800gs 256mb graphics card and 1.5 gigs of ram and it was much better but still not smooth by any means, still a little choppy and the mouse lagged a little.

there are some cool concepts in this but it really needs to be polished up and made to run on systems with lesser specs. Sorry, but if a 7800gs is not fast enough to run this decently smooth it really needs a lot of work.

haven't tried it on my macbook pro yet, i'll post the results when i do.

edit:

I just tested it on my macbook pro and results are similar to the prescot box but a little more choppy.

Edited 2007-01-06 01:28

Reply Score: 3

Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm happy to see I'm not the only one. Those who claim Java software is snappy should stop the FUD. Java requires lots or resources (CPU & RAM), like it or not. They should have used C++.

Reply Score: 1

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Claiming anything as "snappy" is not FUD. Read the letters.

Reply Score: 5

fffffh Member since:
2006-01-04

Those who claim Java software is snappy should stop the FUD. Java requires lots or resources (CPU & RAM), like it or not.

On a AthlonXP_1500Mhz/768MB/Ati 9200 works fine (for a livecd, not hdd installation).

Reply Score: 3

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Just a suggestion, but you should always put quotes when you include part of the original message in a reply. Otherwise it gets quite confusing.

You can also use the HTML italics tag.

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Did you check to see if you had 3D acceleration? With a LiveCD, it's quite possible that the proprietary drivers aren't included.

It's not as if there were that many polygons to push...perhaps it's an issue with how they handle textures.

The fact that it's Java-based is irrelevant. Java can be quite fast. Choppiness is very probably related to the 3D component.

Reply Score: 5

re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

>Did you check to see if you had 3D acceleration? With a LiveCD, it's quite possible that the proprietary drivers aren't included. <

it comes with proprietary nvidia and ati drivers and i had full hardware acceleration.

it is rare that i find games that bring this gpu to it's knees like this live cd does.

on a side note, i like the applications menu.

Edited 2007-01-06 02:37

Reply Score: 3

jimveta Member since:
2006-09-21

re_re: It's most definitely not java -- probably something with your configuration. Jonathan Schwartz when he first demo'd this to the public himself in 2003 was using a much older PC + ATI Radeon 7000 without problems

check out how smooth it should run on relatively low end hardware here:
http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/demo.xml
(choose high-bandwidth version)

Edited 2007-01-06 02:58

Reply Score: 2

re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

well,i don't know what to say, i have since tried it on a prescott 3.4 with integrated intel graphics and had similar results.

So you are telling me that i have 4 computers all with jagged up configurations?. I may also add, every computer i tested has been literally built to work with linux except for the macbook pro........ it sucked on all of them.

i have a feeling my idea of polished is maybe a little higher then what a lot of others expect.

but when i use 3d stuff i want it to be smoooooooooth
i'm talking....... butter, like you don't even know the cpu or gpu is working to do it, no lines, not jaggedness, just pure smooth perfection, and i don't see why this can't happen.

I use beryl and it works perfectly and while it is not quite as smooth as i would like, it is pretty decent. Project Looking Glass is not even close to how smooth beryl is, even with beryl running on lower end hardware and looking glass running on high end hardware......... just doesn't make sense.

Edited 2007-01-06 06:11

Reply Score: 3

jimveta Member since:
2006-09-21

So you are telling me that i have 4 computers all with jagged up configurations?. I may also add, every computer i tested has been literally built to work with linux except for the macbook pro........ it sucked on all of them.

Have you taken a look at the video in my previous link? If it's not at least as smooth as that, then yes, I would say that there is something "incompatible" with your configurations and LG3D.

And by smooth, I do not mean certain rendering qualities or features (antialiasing, filtering, and all that); I simply mean framerates compared among the same features.

I don't think it would be surprising if all 4 of your configuration had something not accelerated or not configured the way LG3D needs it to be. Sorry you had trouble and the only thing I can advise is what's in the LG3D docs:

ATI: make sure to load the 'dri' and 'glx' modules; use 'glxinfo | grep "direct rendering"' to check

NVIDIA: first make sure the Xserver is using the prioprietary 'nvidia' module and not the free 'nv' of course

then make sure the Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" is enabled and make sure NVIDIA-GLX extension is shown xdpyinfo.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I see...well I think I'll pass. My computers won't be powerful enough.

Reply Score: 2

A good start...
by tux68 on Sat 6th Jan 2007 03:13 UTC
tux68
Member since:
2006-10-24

Performance wise the live cd ran well here and some of the UI features were interesting.

But surprisingly the fonts were hard to read and many icons lacked a hint as to what they were for and without tooltips it was click-and-be-surprised.

Although you can see the potential, it still feels more like a toy rather than a useful user interface advance.

Reply Score: 4

RE: A good question would be...
by glarepate on Sat 6th Jan 2007 06:09 UTC in reply to "A good start..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Performance wise the live cd ran well here...

What are you running it on?

Reply Score: 1

RE: A good start...
by Tuishimi on Sat 6th Jan 2007 06:33 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think I could ever move away from using a standard (more-or-less), windowed UI. I've just been using them too long. X windows, MS Windows, Mac OS [X], Workbench... I'm stuck in a rut.

Reply Score: 2

I ran this ....
by present_arms on Sat 6th Jan 2007 21:50 UTC
present_arms
Member since:
2005-07-09

on my Althon 2600+ with 1gig ram and a Nvidia 6200 agp card and it ran fine for me I used the slax 'to ram' cheat code and it flew... anyway only problem I had was that the menu seemed hard to read... but the effects worked well

just my
2 pence worth

Edited 2007-01-06 21:54

Reply Score: 2

RE: I ran this ....
by Doc Pain on Sun 7th Jan 2007 11:05 UTC in reply to "I ran this ...."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

You should be glad to have the possibility to have a look at the PLG CD... doesn't work here. Startup is fine, but when it comes to getting into the graphics mode, monitor is set to fH=199,8kHz, fV=0Hz (usual fH=81.2kHz, fV=74.5Hz), monitor switches off, CD is ejected, and machine is powered off. That's all. But maybe my testing machine is too old (Intel Celeron 2.0 GHz, 640 MB RAM, ATI RV250 Radeon 9000/9000 Pro 128 MB, Eizo F980 21" CRT). :-(

Reply Score: 2

Java Speed
by andrewg on Sun 7th Jan 2007 15:01 UTC
andrewg
Member since:
2005-07-06

Two things to consider:

1. Which version of the JVM are you running.
2. Which platform are you running it on.

If you are running the Sun JVM 1.5 or especially 1.6 on Windows then it is very fast!

Indeed if you can put up with Firefox then apps like Aptana and Netbeans have better responsiveness than Firefox. Subjectively Netbeans is much snappier than Vistual Studio Express or Macromedia fireworks.

On a side not, has any else noticed how slow firefox is on a Linux distro versus Windows. Especially Javascript?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Java Speed
by Savior on Mon 8th Jan 2007 10:40 UTC in reply to "Java Speed"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

"On a side not, has any else noticed how slow firefox is on a Linux distro versus Windows. Especially Javascript?"

I have. ;) I was running the excellent tutorial of db4o (http://www.db4o.com/), which uses Java applets, so that the samples can be tried out right away. When I dragged another window in front of it, the applets refreshed almost immediately (refresh is slower on Linux than on Windows, I guess that is where the "almost" comes from), but the html part of the page was gray for quite a while.

However, I cannot say that Firefox is snappy on Windows either. I think they should concentrate more on the UI and the memory consumption, lest version 3 will be close to unusable. On my box, at least.

Reply Score: 1

Not for me
by mzilikazi on Mon 8th Jan 2007 13:02 UTC
mzilikazi
Member since:
2006-02-11

Instead of using the live cd I installed LG3D onto my Debian Sid box AMD 3200+/1G Kingston PC3200/GeForce 6200/Nvidia-96.31.

It ran fine from a 'speed' perspective but had other issues that made it unusable. I added a launcher for Swiftfox but it wouldn't 'Save' and did not appear on the taskbar (or at least that's what I expected it to do). Swiftfox did start up no problems, (as did a few other apps) but for reasons unknown the hideous 3D cursor disappears over any X11 windows! Makes it kind of hard to do much when that happens. The background and fonts were blurry and the fonts were difficult to read. My eyes begged for mercy. Hmmm.... Enlightenment DR17 is alpha and it 'just works' and LG3D has made it to 1.0 and has these kinds of issues??? I'll give it yet another year to see if it becomes something useful.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not for me
by harcalion on Tue 9th Jan 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "Not for me"
harcalion Member since:
2005-07-12

Enlightenment has been in that "alpha-stage" for more years than the entire Looking Glass development process. Since Enlightenment 0.16 was released in 2000, that gives us 7 years.

Reply Score: 1