Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th May 2009 19:06 UTC
Linux We all know them. We all hate them. They are generally overdone, completely biased, or so vague they border on the edge of pointlessness (or toppled over said edge). Yes, I'm talking about those "Is Linux ready for the desktop" articles. Still, this one is different.
Thread beginning with comment 364150
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by pcunite
by DavidSan on Mon 18th May 2009 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by pcunite"
DavidSan
Member since:
2008-11-18


The feelings I get from others in the Linux community is that because so much of the base (the kernel, libraries, some GUI kits) are free that any attempt by me to charge for an application (which has fewer man hours than the above list) is somehow morally wrong.


That is true, and thanks to that feeling, Linux is always going to be left behind. When technology is old and everyone knows how to do it, it will get its way to Linux. But, it could be 10 years later.

Mac OS X had double buffered Windows in 2000. Where are Linux double buffered windows after 9 years?

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[4]: Comment by pcunite
by steviant on Tue 19th May 2009 10:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by pcunite"
steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

Double Buffering and Alpha Blending is provided by using any method of "indirect rendering" which has been in Linux since at least 2005 looking at my screenshot archive, all drawing operations in X have been hardware accelerated using OpenGL since the introduction of AIGLX into Xorg a couple of years back.

It's true that X11 lacked the 2D hardware acceleration that was used by Windows GDI for many years but even the biggest 2D acceleration cheerleader Microsoft has now moved beyond GDI's 2D acceleration paradigm to a more generic strategy using DirectX.

Windows Vista (and 7), Mac OS X and Linux are pretty much on the same page when it comes to desktop graphics these days.

You make it hard to swallow your arguments about how far behind Linux is when you obviously haven't looked in years.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by pcunite
by Soulbender on Tue 19th May 2009 12:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by pcunite"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Stop confusing us with actual facts. Real men argue using unsubstantiated opinions thinly veiled as matters of fact.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by pcunite
by DavidSan on Tue 19th May 2009 17:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by pcunite"
DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

Double Buffering and Alpha Blending is provided by using any method of "indirect rendering" which has been in Linux since at least 2005 looking at my screenshot archive, all drawing operations in X have been hardware accelerated using OpenGL since the introduction of AIGLX into Xorg a couple of years back.

It's true that X11 lacked the 2D hardware acceleration that was used by Windows GDI for many years but even the biggest 2D acceleration cheerleader Microsoft has now moved beyond GDI's 2D acceleration paradigm to a more generic strategy using DirectX.

Windows Vista (and 7), Mac OS X and Linux are pretty much on the same page when it comes to desktop graphics these days.

You make it hard to swallow your arguments about how far behind Linux is when you obviously haven't looked in years.


I look at Linux every day. If you believe that a Linux desktop with AIGLX is on par of Windows or Mac, you must be blind.

Besides, it is not a problem with hardware acceleration. Mac OS X works with double buffering by default even in hardware that does not support 3D acceleration. It supports double buffering since the public beta in 1999.

Double buffering has nothing to do with hardware acceleration. That's another thing.

Reply Parent Score: 1