Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:02 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces As an answer to someone asking whether Unity will require a working OpenGL stack to operate in Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal", Mark Shuttleworth announced that Canonical would offer an optional, QT-based, "2D" implementation of Unity. Here is a video, too.
Thread beginning with comment 458227
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: WTF?!?
by WereCatf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF?!?"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Or get a job and buy a computer with more than 256megs of ram.

That's a very arrogant and ignorant thing to say and quite clearly shows how much thought you put behind the whole thing..

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: WTF?!?
by vivainio on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:39 in reply to "RE[2]: WTF?!?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


That's a very arrogant and ignorant thing to say and quite clearly shows how much thought you put behind the whole thing..


Care to elaborate how it's either arrogant or ignorant?

It's a fact of life that having ~ 20 megs more libraries mapped in virtual memory only hurts people who have way too little ram. It is not a concern in desktop/laptop/netbook form factor, and even the crummiest ubuntu-capable tablets will probably match the requirement as well. Catering to that crowd is not in the best interest of Canonical, those are well served by ligthweight window managers like fluxbox.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: WTF?!?
by WereCatf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 20:43 in reply to "RE[3]: WTF?!?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

First of all, telling the other person to get a job is the arrogant part; you don't know whether or not he has one or whether or not he could afford a computer.

Secondly, just telling someone to buy a newer, better computer is the ignorant part; it's much wiser to keep using old hardware as long as it works and fits the bill. Just buying new all the time creates unnecessary stress on the environment.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: WTF?!?
by nt_jerkface on Sun 16th Jan 2011 06:39 in reply to "RE[2]: WTF?!?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Ignorant of what? Do you realize how cheap old hardware goes for on ebay? I found a replacement pentium-m cpu for a laptop from 2005 for 5 dollars + 2 for shipping.

256mb does not cut it anymore, have a look at how much a modern browser uses with just a couple tabs open.

Modern operating systems should require at least 512mb for installation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: WTF?!?
by Valhalla on Sun 16th Jan 2011 10:16 in reply to "RE[3]: WTF?!?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Modern operating systems should require at least 512mb for installation.

Should, why? Actually I think the less RAM an operating system uses the better (while obviously providing necessary functionality), since that leaves more RAM for applications, which actually IS the reason I launch an operating system in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: WTF?!?
by segedunum on Mon 17th Jan 2011 16:43 in reply to "RE[2]: WTF?!?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a very arrogant and ignorant thing to say and quite clearly shows how much thought you put behind the whole thing..

He's right. As soon as people do something that moves software on and makes it do more you get some ignoramous complaining how it won't work on his machine from over ten years ago with 64MB of memory.

Reply Parent Score: 3