To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This has absolutely nothing to do with XGL/Compiz/Aero/etc. Those are still 2D desktops, only now with some 3D effects. That's all. Project Looking Glass, on the other hand, is a true 3D interface (still hindered by 2D input devices and screen, of course). This is a major difference.
"""Project Looking Glass, on the other hand, is a true 3D interface"""
Question: Why do we need a true 3D interface?
I've yet to see XGL/AIGLX/Looking Glass do anything that couldn't be done better in pure 2D.
Looking Glass demos look just like XGL demos. Except they are not quite as glitzy.
And all the 3D desktops look useless to me. (As in "no better than what we already have.") Essentially the UI equivalent of the dot.com bubble.
Just my opinion.
In the end, as long as the user sees a 2D desktop it doesn't matter if it is true 3D or not. The question is even would we like a true 3D interface.
To get good user interaction you would probably need some kind of input device that the user moves in 3D. My guess is most such devices would result in more work related injuries due to muscle stress.
This has absolutely nothing to do with XGL/Compiz/Aero/etc. Those are still 2D desktops, only now with some 3D effects.
True, but with some of the latest plugins, such as the 3D view (which "stacks" windows on top of one another), the boundary is becoming blurry. I understand the distinction, though.
What about that experimental 3D desktop in which you could "stack" files and organize them with mouse gestures...do you guys remember how it was called? I remember seeing a video about this, and thinking it was very innovative.






Member since:
2005-07-02
...however, I can't help but wonder how relevant this is to the Linux community, with the great strides that XGL/AIGLX and Compiz/Beryl have made in the past year...