“Beryl 0.2.0 will be released shortly and I spent time the last week testing out Beryl 0.2.0 RC2 on Kubuntu’s Edgy Eft. The improvements found in 0.2.0 are simply amazing. Improvements in usability features, improvements in the pure 3D eye candy, and even the Beryl Settings Manager has been improved (the layout has become much more logically laid out). As you read through this preview of Beryl 0.2.0 and see some of the screenshots, I think you will get a firm grasp on how impressive Beryl can be. Basically, Beryl makes OS X and Vista look old and antiquated.”
the Beryl Settings Manager has been improved (the layout has become much more logically laid out)
This I have to disagree with. It’s certainly not the most cluttered UI, but my word, the number of things you can tweak!
http://lunapark6.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Beryl-Settings-Mana…
I think what the Beryl team have done is fantastic, it is a maturing product. What we need is a “light” UI for just:
– selecting themes
– changing simple options
– resetting defaults
– downloading Beryl plugins & previewing them
I really couldn’t care less about tweaking etc. That should be sidelined to the “Uber Advanced” area!!
I couldn’t agree more.
Beryl really is impressive, but the settings manager is just terrible.
Give people a nice, easy to use manager that let’s them change some settings and choose between different profiles (maybe installing well tested profiles by default would be a good idea here) and leave the tweaking of every last setting to those geeks who want to play with this kind of stuff.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to bash beryl or the effort that has gone into it and I can very well understand that devs would like to show everyone what beryl is capable of, but beryl would be a much better option for distros to use if it had a setting manager “normal” people could use.
Just try beryl-settings-simple
“Just try beryl-settings-simple”
Ah, thanks, didn’t know about this.
Looks very promising.
Beryl really is impressive, but the settings manager is just terrible.
What beryl needs are good default settings so that users don’t need to tweak too many things to get a good desktop experience without learning what beryl is. Good defaults are more important than a good settings chooser.
Maybe when they believe it’s a stable product for regular use they’ll do that. I imagine this UI is useful for people developing Beryl and early users who’ll be finding and documenting useful tweaks.
Not everything released in the open source world is ready for use.
I really like the concept of compositing desktops. The ability to not have to redraw will be a boon to the appearance of the desktop.
The problem I have with Beryl relates to my last time of trying it. It made all of my gnome fonts small, but regardless of that the effects were setup for showing off rather than practical use. For example, a minimize effect would take far too long.
So will I use Beryl (and friends)? Eventually. I will use it after a company has come along and set it up to great defaults for productivity. Being that I use Ubuntu, that will probably mean a few versions away I suspect.
So good luck to Beryl, and I will see you eventually.
– Jeffrey.
Jeff,
I hate to say it, but no company seems to be taking an active interest in beryl. As a matter of fact, the software engineers from Redhat who were (previously) working on the metactiy compositor are now working on compiz and you can see them on the compiz mailing lists.
Don’t think this is a flame, my desktop is running beryl right now.
This might be due to young age, but I really don’t think it matters which one ultimately gets used.
From a purely work point of view, just having a decent 3d accelerated desktop would work regardless of what is running it.
– Jeff.
Well that was pretty patronising.
I’m using Compiz but there’s an option to set the time animation will take to complete. It should be somewhere in Beryl too but I guess Beryl’s configuration utility let’s you set up so many things that you might miss things that are actually useful.
Funny, I have the ability to do that w/ beryl-settings-manager too!
(with remarkable ease)
http://img465.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oopswn4.png
Edited 2007-02-05 17:39
I wouldn’t call this utility remarkably easy. There are many usability problems I can spot on a screenshot you have provided and although I think Compiz is not perfect it’s way cleaner and follows Gnome philosophy of providing sane defaults and resonable amount of settings (ones actually needed).
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/3271/compizsettingsfz5.png
Beryl is generally nice, but they need to do more Antialiasing and Smooghing, for example for their Expose-like effect, where Exposed apps looks crappy or correct crappy window borders to be more smooth.
Looks like the same problem occurs for the taskbar thumbs, they need to be more smooth to look nice.
Overall nice candy
While many people will no doubt bemoan the uselessness of many of Beryl’s 3D effects, I can attest to the pure pleasure of using a 3D enhanced Linux desktop. I’ve been using Linux for the past four years and only until recently has using Linux become fun. With AIGLX enabled, windows fly about the screen and the whole experience seems professional if not elegant. Linux has finally come into its own. I’ve been using Beryl since the Compiz-Quinn days (prior to the split) and development has been ongoing; at break-neck speed. True, several glitches and bugs have crept into Beryl over the course of its rapid development, but, these have been fixed quickly. I can’t help but notice that most major Linux distros are including Beryl over Compiz in their latest releases. This says something about Beryl.
While this adds little of substantial value to your desktop, you can’t argue with a bit of bling!
IMO this (and similar projects) will do more to help linux adoption than most things (except maybe the “no spyware” – when I think back to endlessly keeping all those anti-virus/spyware/adware stuff up to date – euch!).
Rambling aside, three massive cheers for the Beryl team!
Basically, Beryl makes OS X and Vista look old and antiquated.
Don’t think so. Linux still looks ugly but now with ugly effects, great …
Edited 2007-02-05 17:05
Have you ever actually looked at a nicely configured Linux desktop? I doubt.
While I don’t neccesarily agree with the “ugly”, I definitely don’t agree with whoever it is claiming Beryl makes OSX and/or Vista look “antiquated.”
Exactly what part of it does that?
People do understand that both OSX and Vista are capable of all the same effects Beryl has, right? Both of them chose to limit the effects because end-user testing showed them to not really help much.
“People do understand that both OSX and Vista are capable of all the same effects Beryl has, right? Both of them chose to limit the effects because end-user testing showed them to not really help much.”
Microsoft is spending a cool half a billion on the wow of Areo and its not even available to low and some mid range card users.
Beryl is fairly unique in the fact that there is plug-ins…and provides reasonable default…that will continually be tweaked over time.
Show me Vista running a Cube…one of Beryls most useful features. It doesn’t have it.
The reality is as has been said on here, some effects are useful, some are just for *bling*…the difference is every one of the is *optional* and can be tweaked.
Can Vista do this?
Does a user want to do this. Absolutely *I* do I turned off the unnecessary effects, chose one for actions I liked…and speeded up some of the animations.
Can you do that in Vista?
What is most surprising is beryl is 6 months old, and is constantly improving and evolving. Its hard to imagine what it will look like in 2 to 5 years when Windows 7 will come out.
You’re completely missing the point — that we are calling out the statement “makes OS X and Vista look old and antiquated”, which is complete garbage.
I never meant to take anything about from Beryl or how impressive it may be.
“You’re completely missing the point — that we are calling out the statement “makes OS X and Vista look old and antiquated”, which is complete garbage. ”
Is it garbage. Its not…It should have been justified as should your rebuttal.
What accelerated desktop has the most features; the most visually impressive features; the most configurable features; most rapid growth in development…and its only out *6 months*. The Answer astonishingly is Linux.
So while Vista and OSX appeal to the layman, explain how a constantly changing and complicated setting scheme is beneficial in the same spectrum?
Yet again, you missed the point.
The point is:
– Vista and OSX *ARE* capable of all these effects and features that Beryl has.
– Some of these very effects were demoed on these operating systems long ago
– Microsoft and Apple chose to not litter Vista and OSX with these effects as a result of feedback from users.
– Therefore, saying “Beryl makes OS X and Vista look old and antiquated” is flawed.
Yes. But it is also flawed to assume that each distro maker is going to put every single Beryl effect into their desktop implementation.
As I see it, Beryl is a building kit from which developers can pick what they want to use.
But I guess people just can’t resist the “wow” effect
Nothing can make Vista or Tiger look out of date. These are flagship desktop operating systems, the latest and greatest from the big guys. If someone came up with a desktop that made these look antiquated, it would be unusable for most people.
What we can say is that Beryl can do almost anything Vista or Tiger can do, plus some stuff that they don’t do (not to say that they can’t), on similar or lesser hardware, with good performance (not outstanding), and vastly more customizations. You can’t definitively say that Beryl is “better” than the desktop effects on Vista or Tiger, but it is surely comparable, and arguably better in some respects.
I think this says a lot for the free software desktop. Creating beautiful, impressive, and useful UI features is traditionally not something with which free software is associated. And yet, we’re hanging around with the best, presenting solid foundations that will enable continual improvements throughout the Vista lifecycle.
Vista and OSX are NOT old and antiquated, but neither is the free software desktop.
Very well said. Hard to disagree with any of that.
You’re also completely missing the point that OS X was in the original statement. This is just a blatant flame towards Vista.
And people always seem to conveniently forget the fact that while, yes, OS X and Vista require more hardware power to do their effects, OS X and Vista have much higher quality and robustness to what they do compared to Compiz/Beryl with an intended lack of customization so that it’s easier for the average user to adapt.
OS X and Vista have much higher quality and robustness to what they do compared to Compiz/Beryl with an intended lack of customization so that it’s easier for the average user to adapt.
In other words: “we know what’s good for you, you’ll have to trust us.”
I don’t know about you, but I like having a choice. I like to be in control of my computing experience…and as far as I can tell this is not a marginal point of view.
Yes, that’s you. You like having as much control as possible. Most people would rather things be out of their way and work without having to change anything.
But for people like you, there is Beryl, and that’s great. For others there is a OS X and Vista.
Yes, that’s you. You like having as much control as possible. Most people would rather things be out of their way and work without having to change anything.
That’s *your* interpretation of what “most people” want. Unfortunately, that is not fact, but your opinion, and I happen to disagree with it. In my opinion, a large portion of of the user base likes to tweak things. The first thing most people do on their PC is to change their screen background. Some people even change the UI font. Others download desktop themes and apps such as WindowBlinds.
In any case, the point is to give the choice to those who want it, and there are more of them than you seem to think.
The ability to tweak and customize is not a flaw, it is *added value*. This is why the Beryl eye candy is better than what Vista/OSX currently offer, because it can replicate what these two OSes can do, and more.
My “opinion” is supported by research by many software companies. So feel free to disagree with it, but don’t think I won’t think you’re a bit odd for doing so.
The keyword in your post is “tweak.” Yes, people like to TWEAK things sometimes. Minor changes. This means something should have the best defaults possible so these tweaks are minor.
There is a difference between a little tweaking and a giant mess of options that intimidate the average user.
There is a difference between giving control to change things and almost forcing the user to change things after growing tired just because some developers think the effects are “cool.”
My “opinion” is supported by research by many software companies.
…the links to which you’ll kindly provide us, right?
This means something should have the best defaults possible so these tweaks are minor.
No disagreement there. In the case of Beryl/Compiz, that’s up to the distro makers, so we’ll have to wait and see until these officially become part of their distros. Dissing it in advance is not arguing in good faith.
There is a difference between a little tweaking and a giant mess of options that intimidate the average user.
…which is why Beryl has a simplified settings panel in addition to the more complete one (the latest version of which, by the way, is *very* well organized).
There is a difference between giving control to change things and almost forcing the user to change things after growing tired just because some developers think the effects are “cool.”
So you agree that it’s better to have more control, as long as the default settings are reasonable? Considering the basic settings in the latest version of Beryl *are* reasonable (i.e. no water rippling effects or flashy fire menus enabled by default), then it seems to me that we are in agreement.
Again, the fact that Beryl gives you access to customizable settings (and the ability to easily add bling if you want) is a *major* advantage over Vista/OS X. The defaults themselves might need additional tweaking (notwithstanding the fact that current Beryl defaults are quite sensible) is a minor point.
It seems to me that you haven’t even tried the most recent version of Beryl…perhaps you should do so before basing your argument on obsolete criticism…
It seems to me that you haven’t even tried the most recent version of Beryl…perhaps you should do so before basing your argument on obsolete criticism…
I’ve tried it, and I still disagree with you. You’re completely missing the point here. Linux is a hobbyist OS, and thus Beryl reflects that audience entirely. Not everybody is a hobbyist, and while a significant amount of users are always willing to make their desktop look better, most don’t care to sift through the mess that is the Beryl settings manager.
What Vista and OSX accomplish is moderately customizable eye-candy without any of the useless effects that Beryl was created to employ. If Beryl wants to compete with that ease of use, then it needs to adapt a more flexible plugin-based structure and allow the users to independently specify what effects they would like to even have installed, not just enabled.
I’ve tried it, and I still disagree with you. You’re completely missing the point here.
I respectfully disagree. I think I very much get the point.
Linux is a hobbyist OS, and thus Beryl reflects that audience entirely. Not everybody is a hobbyist, and while a significant amount of users are always willing to make their desktop look better, most don’t care to sift through the mess that is the Beryl settings manager.
Which is why the current defaults are sensible, and not over-the-top as many here have tried to argue.
There is also the simplified Beryl settings manager for people who don’t care to customize much. It is *very* simple to use.
I also object to you speaking for *most* users. There is no such thing as *most* users – users are so varied, with so many different profiles, that trying to determine what a majority of them wants is an exercise doomed to failure.
Again, that is mostly irrelevant as the current Beryl default settings are sensible ones, and showing the desktop to “ordinary users” has drawn nothing less than awe in the vast majority of cases. In other words, it got that “wow” that MS so desperately wants to project for Vista, and did so while running on hardware from two years ago…
What Vista and OSX accomplish is moderately customizable eye-candy without any of the useless effects that Beryl was created to employ.
Again, useless *for you*. What you might find useless, someone else may find useful or pleasant. I mostly use the Exposé-like plugin, as well as the new Widget layer plugin. Someone else might prefer other effects. Some might like the cube desktop, others the “flattened cube” one.
Beryl was created to be open, which has sparked a development frenzy for new plugins. Will they all be useful? Certainly not, but some really cool ones will prop up, some might even become essentials.
If Beryl wants to compete with that ease of use, then it needs to adapt a more flexible plugin-based structure and allow the users to independently specify what effects they would like to even have installed, not just enabled.
I completely disagree – who cares which ones are installed or not? Most people would rather install the whole shebang than start shopping for which ones they want. In fact, you blatantly contradict yourself here: having to choose which desktop effects you want installed would be no less confusing than going through the list to activate/deactivate them.
I’m sorry, but your argument doesn’t hold. The simple facts are that a) the default settings for Beryl are quite sensible, and b) it is *trivial* to turn effects on/off in the settings manager.
Not only does Beryl compete, in my view it leaves both Vista and OSX in the dust. You’re free to disagree, but you’ll have to come up with better arguments than “OMG the panel will be confusing for the mythical clueless user!!”
As I said before, it doesn’t really matter to me. My desktop is beautiful, functional and efficient, and it turns heads and drops jaws whenever I show it off.
hobbyist OS is it? Just wondering what it is that makes you say that? When the most conservative numbers put us on par with OSX. So if OSX is considered mainstream then I think Linux should be counted as such as well.
The two aren’t contradictory. People want things “to just work”. However, people also want to be able to customize things to their own styles without too much effort. Most people have better things to do than to spend hours at a time discovering all options that are available. If that were the case, we’d all know all options that are available in MS Office or Open Office, instead of the 1% that most of us keep going back to. There are people who know 100% of the features in MS Office and Open Office and use them when appropriately, but those Office geeks are the minority, just as car geeks and computer geeks are also the minority.
Look at it another way. Imagine if everything were configurable and no sane defaults existed for anything. You’d spend days tweaking your car until it could actually drive on the road, days tweaking your TV until it could pick up channels in your area discretely (instead of as a continuous band the way radios are), days customizing the features your bank/phone company/cable company/hospital/etc offer you, hours specifying how you wanted your meals prepared at a local restaurant, and so on. You wouldn’t be able to get anything done.
It’s also not enough that good defaults are selected and that all other options are available. If that’s the case, you’ll never be able to find the option you need, so you’ll stick with the default. It’s important to have both sane defaults and common customizations that are easy to find.
That being said, it’s been pointed out that ‘beryl-settings-simple’ exists for this purpose, which should fill this need. I don’t have a screen shot handy (does anyone have one?) but the one I remember seeing looks *a lot* easier to manage than the compiz configuration management:
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/3271/compizsettingsfz5.png
Edited 2007-02-05 22:58
This is the same old argument GNOME (stripped down), KDE (customizable).
I don’t want people to tell me I *CANT* change something. Best to have both tools one for those who want minimal changes and those who want to tweak it up.
gotta disagree with you there. Most I have shown Beryl too (both OSX and Windows) and they think its the coolest thing they have ever seen.
Well using this interface for 15 minutes give me the nausea with all this ‘blob’ effect everywhere.
I was happy to retrieve a ‘static’ desktop after that.
I still find funny to see effects everywhere in new linux desktop after hearing for years that mac OS X effects just suck because they was useless and using cpu for nothing.
Even though many say that 3D effects (Bling as some are calling it) is not useful; I have to disagree. Scaling, thumbnail view, and transparent cube are all very useful. Having a bunch of apps running on a bunch of workspaces can sometimes be hard to manage. Being able to quickly identify and select what you need is great. These guys are truly making Linux a pleasure to use.
I fully agree. Many of those effects ARE usefull. People saying something different have obviously never used it – perhaps only seen it. Yes, some effects are just eye candy, and I’ve turned most of them off, too. But who knows what other useful effects Beryl will offer us in a few months or years.
“Beryl makes OS X and Vista look old and antiquated.”
Both OS X and Vista can easily do all these effects. The reason they don’t is because Microsoft and Apple have some restraint. All the over the top effects add nothing to usability. Animation in OS X is quick, simple and straight to the point, letting you know where things are going to.
Beryl is like being on a roller-coaster ride of special effects that makes you want to throw up afterwards.
Edited 2007-02-05 17:13
100% agree.
I have used Beryl for some time, and although the flashy 3D effects are nice, after a very short time, I only used a few of the features. (Only practical/useful ones.)
And yes the other OSes can do these things and even better. The ripple effect in dashboard is much smoother than beryl and the cube effect when using virtual machines with Parallels is cool, but also appropriate.
I applaud the developers, but any effect if not used wisely isn’t really useful and is just gloss.
(Then again, we see the sheep are easily lead by this stuff.)
I’m a big fan of Linux, but I hardly see people jumping to it because they can have cool water drops on their desktop.
Edited 2007-02-05 17:25
D’oh! You beat me to it.
I guess people easily forget that Microsoft was demoing longhorn with these types of effects back in 2003 and possibly earlier.
I’m not as familiar with OSX demoing the stuff though, so I can’t comment on that.
Look, I agree that some of the effects on Beryl are very annoying, but since they’re all easy to turn off it’s a pretty minor criticism. I have to use OSX at my university and, in my opinion, a lot of the effects are extremely annoying. The genie effect and the floppy drop-down menu thing were pretty impressive when I first saw them, but now I find them irritating and wish I could turn them off (maybe there’s a way to do this, I only looked for a while before giving up).
I think the fact that Beryl has more than its fair share of useless effects is a good thing. It means that even in this early stage of the game, there are lots of people out there experimenting with this new technology and seeing what they can use it for. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a lot of extremely useful and innovative effects coming out of the Beryl project. The high level of community interest coupled with the Free Software nature of the project ought to foster a great deal of creativity. Hopefully the good ideas from Beryl will also be picked up by MS and Apple, resulting in benefits for everyone.
Both OS X and Vista can easily do all these effects. The reason they don’t is because Microsoft and Apple have some restraint.
Vista may be able to do them, but I’m willing to bet it will take heavier hardware than it does on the linux side.
I installed Vista on a test machine and if Aero Glass was on the machine was pretty sluggish in the UI department. Same machine with Ubuntu and Beryl and it was very snappy with a ton of effects going.
Restraint? MS? Ms’s over-use of info-balloons on the system tray is proof perfect the company knowns no restraint.
What’s the best LiveCD to see this with? I tried Sabayon this weekend and the effects weren’t there (with the command switches I tried anyway).
That may depend on what video card you possess. NVidia drivers are surrounded by legal issues that (according to most folks) restrict them from being distributed with the distro. Intel cards should be ready to go though, and I believe older ATi cards can run AIGLX with the open-source drivers.
“Basically, Beryl makes OS X and Vista look old and antiquated.”
it’s not about the look, it’s about the useabilitly. The eye candy has to make sense, it has to make my work easier.
In my opinion, os x is just the only one OS that is using eye candy for this purpose.
I believe Beryl can really do this, but it needs some tweaking for it to be a good work environment.
Nonetheless I still don’t use it. It had a few things that were not compatible with the way I use my computer. Just hope it will be better (as in “having what I want it to have”) in the next version.
Great piece of software, it just need some sane defaults.
Damn, as much as I appreciate the efforts, I am still not really comfortable with the 3D-metaphors that beryl uses. A spinning cube inside a screen? Windows with thickness? To me, they are a bit awkward extensions wrapped onto the classic 2D interface.
How about a desktop with real volume where I can flip or drag windows back and forth, turn around just a bit to watch my array of virtual terminals on my right, shuffle around files, assemble them into a pile and push it to the back of the “room” before I apply the zip-lasso and exit to some other room… I dunno.
ack, that sounds even worse
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I really couldn’t care less about “3D desktops”. Unless they work like ones in Minority Report. That was kinda cool.
It’ll be awhile till a decent “3D metaphor” comes out that works.
ack, that sounds even worse
Haha, yes it might actually not work at all. Its just amazing to me that the gaming industry is advancing 3D so rapidly both in look and feel and that the desktop is lagging behind so much.
Oh well, I prefer layered and grouped windows in a simple fluxbox setup over beryl any day 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob
This has been tried, allbeit with a different emphasis than you’d probably like. But you come down to the same problems you have in real life:
1. Things only exist in one place at a time.
2. Each dimension you add makes things quadratically more difficult to find (you add that much more space).
3. There’s no 3d computing hardware (I’m talking about 3d mice, 3d monitors, not GPU’s).
The first one is a problem that’s been worked on a lot. Search, relational databases, and other things attempt to solve this in sane ways which make sense in computing. Adding a third dimension just makes this problem more troublesome per number 2!
Also, why make the environment 3d when they user is using 2d interfacing. And if you develop 3d peripherals, would you actually be helping? Is it easier to walk to a file cabinet in a different room rather than open a file browser and move through a few directories? It certainly maps more closely to how we do things on a regular basis, but I remind you that losing things is not a problem specific to computing!
It also proposes basic user inferfacing problems. If you have interactions based on coordinates it’s very hard to notice that one window is a mere unit more deeply set back than another. Not to mention, rendering becomes a nightmare: Text will look great at a z depth of 0, but move it to 1 and it turns ugly, either way you go. Bitmap graphics are anathema to the whole system, and regular use would mean regularly noticing how obnoxious they are.
Some of the things you mention might be nice if there were 3d holographic displays.
Both OSX and Vista show much more polish. Beryl is full of potential though, and a great option for Linux users.
Still, I could not find a good explanation, why can’t it be a set of Compiz plugins? I would definitely prefer a small core and set of plugins.
Beryl DOES use plugins. You can enable/disable them as you like (of course some depend on each other).
Tom
More goofy eye candy for people too stupid to figure out how to use a taskbar or task switcher…
But again, all these thumbnail and iconic task switchers are SO useful when you’ve got two .html, two .js and a .css open in the same editor… No wonder I end up screaming at the display “Oh for **** sake just show me a text list of FILENAMES AND PATHS”
But people love their eye candy, even if it is all flash and no substance… and even if it results in hours of programmer time wasted on stuff that adds ZERO FUNCTIONALITY while real underlying problems in the various OS and applications (and I’m pointing fingers at ALL of them) go untouched.
I very much agree with what you said. These “features” waste resources on doing something that was already accomplished better by exsisting, and extremely simple and lightweight technologies.
As long as they can be turned off completely, I doubt I will ever use them.
As long as they can be turned off completely, I doubt I will ever use them.
All Berly effect can easily be turned on and off with a click of the mouse. Also, if you’re not interested in these effects, you don’t have to install/use Beryl at all…
Edited 2007-02-05 22:10
Sorry, but if a windowmanager continually uses 15% cpu on a dualcore 2.2 ghz proc, something is wrong. i checked all settings – and it seems this is just how it is.
Well, if THAT is what is meant by ‘it’ll make OS X and Vista look old’ then i’ll skip it.
I must say it’s features as a windowmanager are getting better, tough, even if it isn’t really usable in terms of speed.
man im only using an 2200+ and its not using anymore of my CPU then MetaCity normally between 0-3%
weird, it might be some setting or plugin… well, i removed it. maybe the final version (it was a SVN checkout) will work better…
Let me add that I’m using beryl on a NOT accelerated ATI driver (the default radeon one), on a Pentium M 1.7GHz (single core), and rarely goes over 2-5% during animations (normally it stays at 0). Since my cpu is mostly idle anyway it’s a fair bargain
Sure, during yum updates and compiles animations can get slow, but X would, too, without beryl.
Then there was something seriously wrong, as i haven’t seen a single smooth animation during the whole time of beryl testing…
It’s not about the number of features. It’s about having the right features (in the right place). I haven’t checked Beryl, so I’m not going to say if it’s better or worse. Arguing it makes OS X and Vista old and atiquated because of number of features, visually impressive features and most configurable features…
Some people just don’t like or don’t have the time to tweak those features. They just want what I said: the right features in the right place.
Even Microsoft pretends to understand that on their new version of its feature-overbloaten office package.
I do agree with you there. although it is kinda the thing with Linux users many of us want ever option possible and thats not true with most Windows/OSX users they just want it to do what they want and thats all. Most of them are not even aware of half the Power of the software they use cause the never saw the need to use it.
Edited 2007-02-05 18:57
…will argue that it’s better *not* to have the option of customizing your eye-candy.
Beryl *can* be over the top for people who like minimal effects when everything is turned – but guess what: you can easily turn off any effects you don’t like.
On the other hand, if I don’t like some of the effects on Vista or OSX, or if I want to add some because, well, I like the bling, then what are my options? Also, how easy is it for enthusiastic coders to experiment and add new plugins now one had thought of yet (or replicate those available on other OSes)?
If only because of this capability, Beryl/Compiz is in fact more advanced than what Vista and OS X deliver…but you’ll never hear this admission from diehard Windows/Mac fans. To even think of admitting that Linux might be ahead as far as eye candy goes is anathema to them.
Well, who cares. I’ve got my beautiful, highly-functional (and efficient) Beryl desktop on my laptop, and people’s jaws drop whenever I show it to them…that’s enough validation for me.
“Only Mac and Windows fans…will argue that it’s better *not* to have the option of customizing your eye-candy.”
Who have you seen that has said that?
Who have you seen that has said that?
Are we reading the same thread?
I tried Beryl some month ago. It wasn’t half bad, I liked how my desktop became much smoother than under Metacity/xfwm. There was just one big showstopper for me, and I don’t know if it has changed.
Is it possible to run 3D programs without having to hack Xgl scripts now? Or you still have to stop it for that?
I have some 3D programs working well, others not so well. The issue is not with Beryl, but rather with Xgl (which, everyone should remember, is just a temporary hack). As far as I know, there are no such problems when using AIGLX, which is the suggested method for using Beryl (of course, if you’re an ATI user, you’re currently stuck with Xgl…)
Does anybody know if Beryl or even Compiz work on multimonitor systems? (I have a Radeon 9600)
They do, with options on how you’d like to compensate for the multiple screens as well.
Have they fixed that “no support for non power of two textures” bug?
It’s hard to say what I think of it. From other people’s screen captures, it looks pretty impressive. I tried installing it on a FC6 and F7T1 running X86_64 computer with an NVidia 7600GS card and it wouldn’t work. All I would get is a blank white screen right after the Beryl splash screen. All four sides of the desktop cube is just plain gray. The problem was posted on the forums http://forum.beryl-project.org/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=3057 but no leads yet.
Is there a bug reporting page somewhere? Have devs seen that particular post but no one has just cared to reply or look into it?
People can argue back and forth about the merits of Beryl, and/or if it is better or worse than the effects in OS X or Vista, but I see what important problem and its with Linux in general.
Because Apple and Microsoft control a single window manager they can apply a more integrated and polished look than beryl can. As great as beryl may look now, composite effects on Linux won’t be fully realized until it is implemented in the native window managers of your DE. For gnome users this may be OK now, but for KDE users or users of other window managers this can be an issue and reveals some “glitches”
I’m sure someone will get all preachy and tell us all how separation is better, but I think the many years of various DEs, WMs, distros has shown us that it isn’t ALWAYS true. It’s flexible that is for sure though.
For gnome users this may be OK now, but for KDE users or users of other window managers this can be an issue and reveals some “glitches”
For the record, I use Beryl with KDE and the only glitch was the desktop selector applet, which has been fixed. What other glitches did you have in mind?
I do hope that KDE 4 will be Beryl-friendly, though since KDE 3.5 works well with it I’m not too worried.
KDE4 will have its own composite effects built-in to the kwin window manager. You can see this on the KDE blogs.
Yeah I think you will be able to replace the WM. Just like you can do on KDE, GNOME, XFCE and with any other Desktop Environment, the question really is, will you have a reason to do so? I know Beryl is great and I really love it, I can’t live without it, but there are chances that Kwin will incorporate some features that we already use on Beryl.
Edited 2007-02-06 08:06
I just hope they fix the bug that causes this to happen when moving windows:
http://68.45.180.45/desktop-sml.png
What version is that from? I’ve used 1.13, 1.14, 1.99b2 and the latest SVN packages, and I’ve *never* seen this.
So, to answer your question, yes, it’s been fixed.
adamk@sorrow:~$ beryl –version
beryl-core 0.1.9999.1
It’s on an r300 with the open source radeon driver with AIGLX. I mentioned it on the beryl forums when I first encountered it about a month ago, I guess.
Adam
I’ve had issues with version 0.1.9999, but then again I’m using Xgl with the proprietary fglrx driver.
One thing Beryl has highlighted for me is that my next computer will have a NVIDIA card/chipset (or an Intel one)…ATI lost a customer with their crappy drivers.
The Apple -> Dock -> Dock Preferences
Select Minimize using “Scale effect”…much more sensible
I’ve noticed, that all 3D and 2.5D solutions are quite bad with scrolling performance. Maybe it is just my hardware, but I doubt that. Vista, BTW, does not sacrifices the scrolling performance to 3D. It is quite important to have scrolling fast, because it is one of most frequent and important UI operations. Editors, browsers, all use scrolling heavily, but 3D is just a candy, isn’t it?
I noticed the same problem, but not with all apps. Gedit scrolls fine with an activated compositor, Firefox/Epiphany don’t.
Early versions of Compiz had that prblem, but it’s not something I’ve seen for some time (a year?).
My scrolling performance is identical now.
However my window dragging, minimising, maximising, creation and destruction are far smoother now that I’m using a composited desktop.
Also no it’s not just candy, there are some great usability features (like a thumbnail based application switcher and visual cues regarding virtual desktops, amongst others).
Also no it’s not just candy, there are some great usability features (like a thumbnail based application switcher and visual cues regarding virtual desktops, amongst others).
I’ve been using Beryl for a while now, and I’m not sold on the utility of thumbnail views in the switcher. All my apps tend to look the same from afar (suddenly Apple’s use of many different styles is making sense). All I see is mostly white windows with black text smudges scattered about. I find it a lot easier to identify an app by its icon, especially since icons are made to be unique and easily identifiable.
The one time thumbnails are of use is when I have several windows of the same app open (a browser say, though tabs mean that isn’t often) AND IF the pages in each window have a different overall color scheme. Otherwise the thumbnail is too small to enable me to tell them apart at a quick glance.
Now, some features do help usability. In X11, I love being able to scroll a window without giving it the focus. So, I can scroll a browser window thats underneath the Kword window in which I’m typing, so the part of the page I want to see isn’t obscured by Kword. Can do this without kword losing focus, win. Beryl goes a step further. (optionally) mousing over the obscured window makes the foreground window see through so I can see the obscured window, without having to activate it. In fact, I can keep typing in Kword.
This could be done before by manually setting Kwords opacity, but it’s pretty cool to have it happen automatically on mouseovers. Some would hate it I guess, but that’s why it’s an option, and why I never understand people who want to remove options.
That was the reason I left ubuntu. Scrolling in Beryl was slow.
Now I use Debian unstable minimal + apt-get install xorg gnome + beryl svn. I guarantee this is light. No more slow scrolling.
xD
The improvements found in 0.2.0 are simply amazing. Improvements in usability features,
Where are those? Most of the fancy task switching stuff was already in older beryl versions I tried. Is a rearranged settings manager all what the author calls amazing usability improvements?
Don’t get me wrong, beryl and compiz are nice, but there are many little annoyances in it.
– Can I use workspaces instead of viewports now? All apps in my saved session open on the first “workspace” when you use viewports. I hate that.
– When I switch to another viewport the application on it doesn’t get focus. :/
– The windowmanager hardly responds when the CPU is under a high load.
This and other dents made me drop the last beryl version I tried.
All these new features keep getting added to beryl, yet there is still no theme that looks to my eyes as clean as stock compiz.
Perhaps I’m also too focused on functionality, but compiz does everything worthwhile in a wm (keybindings, put & scale modules) while maintaining a clean appearance. As FC6 has shown, compiz is a perfect base composite wm for a distribution.
Depends if you use Emerald Themes or Heliodor.
I find the themes in Emerald are not very consistant with the Gnome themes they build upon where are Heliodor accelerate your gnome themes.
Personally I like Resilience as a theme and accelerated under Beryl it is great.