Linked by vivainio on Thu 14th Oct 2010 11:31 UTC
KDE In his lengthy and interesting blog post covering the future of Plasma, KDE's Aaron Seigo proposes Qt Quick and QML (a declarative language that embeds JavaScript) as replacement of the Graphics View architecture currently used by Plasma. This holds a promise of massive speedups and cheap effects as all paint operations become candidates for OpenGL acceleration, contrary to the aging Graphics View architecture that is still stuck with various inefficiencies caused by the underlying QPainter approach. Expressiveness and easy programmability of QML is a nice bonus, of course.
Thread beginning with comment 445061
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Curious view
by renox on Thu 14th Oct 2010 15:11 UTC
renox
Member since:
2005-07-06

>> Seigo does note, though, that eventually everything will move to OpenGL, and he's right. That's called progress, and cannot (and should not) be stopped. There's enough choice in the Linux world when it comes to less demanding (hardware-wise) desktop environments. <<

So a user should choose a *full desktop environement* according to whether he has hardware accelerated OpenGL or not??
It seems incredibly rigid!
IMHO, the users should only have to choose whether he wants to enable "shiny effects" or not, this is not progress..

Reply Score: 3

RE: Curious view
by TheGZeus on Thu 14th Oct 2010 15:26 in reply to "Curious view"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

While I see your point, the same could be said of bitmapped graphics and colour graphics.
Not everyone has 2D acceleration, either.
With the way xorg drivers are moving and the fact that probably 90% of bitmap graphics processing units sold today support 3D acceleration, this is a logical move.
Should it happing quickly? No.
Should it or something similar happen? Yes.

I'm completely disenchanted with OpenGL, though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Curious view
by Neolander on Thu 14th Oct 2010 15:56 in reply to "RE: Curious view"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, I don't agree with the statement that it's the same situation. Be it only because bitmap blitting and color graphics are standard (through VESA), whereas 3D is implemented in a proprietary and generally undisclosed way, making implementation a PITA if you don't work for the relevant HW manufacturer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Curious view
by tyrione on Fri 15th Oct 2010 01:35 in reply to "RE: Curious view"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

While I see your point, the same could be said of bitmapped graphics and colour graphics.
Not everyone has 2D acceleration, either.
With the way xorg drivers are moving and the fact that probably 90% of bitmap graphics processing units sold today support 3D acceleration, this is a logical move.
Should it happing quickly? No.
Should it or something similar happen? Yes.

I'm completely disenchanted with OpenGL, though.


You're disenchanted because the OpenGL on Linux that is integrated into Desktop Environments is still in the 1.x era.

Wake yourself up when it reaches 2.x let alone 3.x.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Curious view
by mart on Thu 14th Oct 2010 19:49 in reply to "Curious view"
mart Member since:
2005-11-17

So a user should choose a *full desktop environement* according to whether he has hardware accelerated OpenGL or not??
It seems incredibly rigid!


This won't happen for a while.
Right now, QML is based upon QGraphicsView, that has pluggable backends, software or opengl.
this is a blessing abd a curse, since using opengl here helps but only so much, at some point you hit a wall, where you can't improve the visual quality/effects unless a big cost in terms of performance, unless the graphics system is designed towards the opengl (or direct3d for what matters) api.
it may be sad, but you don't find modern 3d games with software rendering

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Curious view
by Soulbender on Fri 15th Oct 2010 01:46 in reply to "Curious view"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Once upon a time there was only monochrome displays. I think it's incredibly rigid that todays desktops require colors. And not just something simple as 8 or 16 colors, we are talking thousands and millions of colors.

Reply Parent Score: 5