Compiz Project Releases C++ Based v0.9.0 237
werfu writes "Compiz 0.9.0, the first release of Compiz rewritten in C++, has been announced on the Compiz mailing list. See the announcement for more info." Compiz has for years been one of my favorite ways to make Windows users envious, despite my (Linux) systems' otherwise low-end graphics capabilities. Besides the switch to C++ from C, this release "brings a whole new developer API, splits rendering into plugins,
switches the buildsystem from automake to cmake and brings minor functionality improvements."
Re:favorite way (Score:2, Insightful)
-1, linux zealotry bordering on FUD
Re:favorite way (Score:2, Insightful)
-1, linux zealotry bordering on FUD
Nah. He's karma whoring.
Re:favorite way (Score:1, Insightful)
Fewer viruses
True, Linux has a smaller user base/market share, and therefore is less of a target for malicious software.
Lower cost of ownership
Debatable, depending on the environment and exact software... but often this is true.
CLI/scripting system that actually works
Very, very true. Although PowerShell is quite powerful... but quite different from most shell scripting in the UNIX world.
Most open source software runs on it
Depends what you mean by "most" ... "most" open source software runs on many, many platforms... including Windows.
Drivers for just about any piece of hardware ever built
'cept all the hardware that only has drivers for Windows.
No blue screen of death
True, you get kernel panics instead when hardware fails or you have a rogue driver. The driver issue isn't as significant, however, if you can get away with sticking to the standard in-kernel drivers.
Not nearly as resource hungry (unless of course you use Compiz :-)
Again this is totally debatable depending on what you're doing and the software you are running. My Ubuntu system loads up more shit than my Windows 7 system after a fresh boot, it seems. Sometimes the gnome-power-manager is consuming 200 MB of ram all on its own. I still prefer the Ubuntu system, however.
Penguins way cooler than butterflies
Definitely true :)
Re:Sensible choices'r'us (Score:3, Insightful)
But then I guess you have never tried to use cmake; else you would not have made the ignorant statement about its incomprehensibility. If you have never used autoconf, automake, make, libtool, m4 and friends it would be just as incomprehensible.
So.. what is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:favorite way (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BS (Score:1, Insightful)
Though I still haven't figured out where all these people are catching viruses from. I never saw one once in my Windows days.
FUD; while it's true that occasionally (very occasionally) one has to edit a config file, most things "just work" these days. I don't have to spend any more time hacking Linux configurations than I used to have to spend messing about with the Windows registry -- and at least Linux config files are documented!
True, though DBUS is pleasanter to use in a script than COM. And I assume you're using VBScript, JScript, PowerShell, or a Windows port of some Unix shell, not the default batch scripting language.
True. The only advantage Linux has here is that it's easier to install open-source software and keep it up to date; the selection is basically the same.
Partially true. I did have trouble with a printer a while back, and NVidia graphics drivers are still a pain if you insist on using the latest version instead of whatever's packaged for your distro. Every other bit of hardware I've tried has just worked first time.
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. Or blind. Or haven't used Win98 in 10 years, which might explain why you haven't a clue how primitive it was compared to any current OS.
Re:Objects... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand, but for speed I expect that C++ still outperforms Java, and while C should outperform both of them, C doesn't feature encapsulation, polymorphism and all the other goodies that OOP provides.
No, C is exactly as fast as C++. C++ only becomes slower if you use certain features that have a performance impact. Example: if you use exceptions, there is a performance penalty. If you don't, you don't get the performance penalty. That is one of the design principles of C++: nothing can be included into the language that slows down code that does not use/need it. The main slow downs you will see in your average C++ program, over the corresponding C, is the use of the string class as opposed to the nasty but fast strcpy and friends, and the extra indirect function calls due to virtual functions (which causes a branch misprediction and hence a pipeline flush on modern cpus, costing you a bunch of clock cycles). Still, you only pay for virtual if you choose to use it, and manually implemented virtual function calls are used all over the place in good old C, with the same effect. Furthermore, C++ templates allow code re-use with exactly 0 performance loss and while the error messages are ugly, they're still a whole load prettier than doing the same thing the C way with recursive includes and lots of preprocessor madness. And you can link to existing C code/libraries without any problems. Frankly, there is no valid reason for starting a new program in C in this day and age.
Re:favorite way (Score:4, Insightful)
Lower cost of Ownership - Last time I went shoppping for a computer, I didn't see any discounts for not having Windows installed from the get go. Either you go with Dell/HP/Lenovo, and they only offer windows, or when the offer Linux, it's the same price, or only a little cheaper, but you get a lot less selection of machines you can get. The other option is to build your own machine from off the shelf components. This is my favourite option, as you can get exactly what you want, but you will end up spending more.
CLI/Scripting system - Almost nobody except tech geeks cares about this. Also, Powershell on Windows isn't all that bad. It has its pluses and its minuses.
Most open source software runs on it - Most all of open source that is worth running will run on Windows. Maybe not all of it, but most of the more important stuff. Conversely, almost no closed source software runs on Linux. Which might not matter to you, but if you're trying to get work done, having things like Photoshop, Outlook (hate it but necessary for business), and many other closed source programs, makes a big difference.
Drivers - Sure you get drivers for all the old stuff. But are you sure that shiny new piece of hardware that just came out last week will run to its full potential. Probably not. And there's also plenty of older hardware that I had that I couldn't run on Linux.
No Blue Screen - I haven't seen a blue screen on a Windows machine in many years. And when I do, it's usually because of bad RAM, causing something to get corrupted. Blue screens still exist, but they don't happen quite as often as they used to. I imagine most Linux systems would also crash pretty badly when they have bad memory.
I'm not some Windows Zealot. I use Windows when it makes sense, and I use Linux where it makes sense. But I don't really think that that any of the reasons you mentioned are valid. Especially if you're talking about home desktop use. Which in the case of Compiz, is exactly the kind of people we are talking about.
Re:Objects... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect the efficiency gap between C and C++ is smaller than you think. Even if you are very strict about encapsulation of objects, you'd be very unlikely to add more than 10% to the run time. And as others have pointed out, making use of features such as templating can actually help the compiler generate more efficient code.
C++ was designed so that it adds no overheads to imperative code, while the OOP constructs such as member functions have only one extra parameter (and one level of indirection for virtual functions). Often the extra parameter would have been passed in C anyway, as a pointer to some data structure.
There are more prosaic reasons why C has persisted. There is the inertia of a large group of programmers who have grown up on procedural languages, with a significant learning curve to switch from this to object oriented programming (even in the scripting world, one sees the still widespread use of imperative paradigms such as in PHP). There is the widespread availability of good C compilers. There are the improvements in the C language, including some features adopted back from C++. There is the existing body of code. There is the historical lack of support for objects in operating systems and associated libraries, so that link formats are oriented towards C procedure calls rather than C++ objects. But these reasons have nothing to do with raw speed.
Where scalability is less important, I can see why Java (in a web context) or languages based on .NET (in a Windows context) might be seen as alternatives. But I would suggest that this is because they integrate better into their context, rather than because speed doesn't matter.
Re:So.. what is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing useful. It's eye candy, like a turbo-charged Aero Glass with 3D effects. I use the cube desktop switcher and that's it. For some reason I find the idea of a cube easier to map out my mind when I have several windows open than a chain of 4 desktops.
So in other words, you find at least one aspect of it to be very useful. While some window effects are just pure eye-candy (e.g., wobbly windows), many of the added desktop effects provide various degrees of enhanced functionality. This includes:
Don't dismiss the suite as just eye-candy; if the main perception of Compiz is that it exists only to make things more fun and prettier, then its overall value to the desktop is understated.
Re:BS (Score:5, Insightful)
* Lower cost of ownership - BS, too much time is spent hacking up config files to make crap work or work right
On Windows, too much time is spent hacking up the registry to make crap work or work right. Just this last Thursday, I had to manually scan the registry to delete every reference to a printer driver that kept killing someone's spooler service... because the spooler service needed to be running to delete the printer normally. If it had been a unix system, I could have just edited a line in a file and been done.
* CLI/scripting system that actually works - BS, anything you can write and make work in Linux, I can in Windows
Using cygwin, bash compiled for Windows or DOS, or other scripting applications that are not guaranteed to be on every Windows system.
* Most open source software runs on it - Show me anything worthwhile that doesn't run in Windows or have a better alternative there
Well, Linux runs in Windows, so I'd say you've won this argument.
* Drivers for just about any piece of hardware ever built - BS, that's the primary thing most users have issues with, half baked drivers
Half-baked drivers in Windows XP, Vista, and 7. That printer driver mentioned above? It was an HP driver written for and installed in Win7 64bit.
* No blue screen of death - Agreed, but I haven't seen one yet in Win7
I haven't either, but I have seen a Win7 machine reboot constantly (the equiv of BSOD since Win7 is set to reboot on fail).
* Not nearly as resource hungry (unless of course you use Compiz :-) - Agreed, but neither was Win98 which is typically how Linux feels
I still have Win98se running on an old machine for old games. Win98se is actually snappier than modern Linux, which is in turn snappier than WinXP/7. How much window compositing did Win98se do? Firewalling? Multi-user? Even the 1998 version of Linux had multi-user support and ipchains.
Mod me down if you want to, but I've yet to have Windows drop me to a command prompt after an video card driver update
I've had it boot up to a BSOD, which looks worse than a command prompt, or a blank screen where I had to remote in or boot up in safe graphics mode.
[I've yet to have Windows drop me to a command prompt after an] OS update (Ubuntu anyone?)
I've had it boot up to a BSOD, which looks worse than a command prompt.
or had to recompile sound drivers after every OS update (Ubuntu on that one too).
I wish I could. Sometimes vendors take years to get their sound drivers working. Google realtek, imac, and Windows 64 bit.
My file manager will display in a column what date pictures were taken so I can categorize them accordingly, can yours do that? It couldn't the last time I checked.
This is the first time that I ever checked. No, it does not, but it could with a little quick editing. Right clicking and selecting properties shows that the Gnome file manager (didn't check KDE) can see the image properties, including "Date Taken", so the information is there. Linux users are probably just better mentally organized, and name their photo directories YYYY_MM_DD
Re:BS (Score:3, Insightful)
command line is better. There's a reason we moved beyond pointing and grunting into symbolic language.
Best description of why to use CLI; it allows for an explosion of thought.
Re:favorite way (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were using #!/bin/sh and expecting bash specific code to work, you're doing it wrong. If you want bash, call it by its proper name and it will always work.
A more likely scenario is that a script written by someone else improperly references /bin/sh despite being chock full with bashisms.
The real problem is that many people these days just assume Unix = Linux and can't even think of /bin/sh possibly not being bash (or something "compatible enough"). This is especially true of "Linux on the desktop" crowd, as server admins typically know better
Re:favorite way (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't value your time.
Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.
Windows is only $119.99 if your time is worth nothing.
Re:favorite way (Score:3, Insightful)
A) have you actually tried to figure out how to secure a network, or even your Dad's computer, when doing so requires he have the ABSOLUTE LATEST version of flash, adobe reader, and java? Not to mention those realplayer and QT plugins that are sure to get exploited one of these days? Linux gets it right with centralized software updates; Windows is an absolute nightmare in this regard. Theres WSUS, but oh wait you cant add crap like foxit reader to it, and MSI deployments can be a nightmare to upgrade. Not to mention some things just dont have MSIs.
B) Most users these days honestly dont care that much about windows, as the programs that they run and the way their windows act. Seeing as many users manage to make the transition to Mac just fine, I dont see why you would claim that there are no "Joe Windows users" out there who would survive an easy transition to, say, Ubuntu 9.04. And in general, once you get things working (which ISNT that hard, theres 8 million wiki articles on just about every concievable 9.04 problem by now), they will continue to work; as exploits get discovered, the system will automatically patch as the updates are released.
C) Being able to customize the crap out of Linux means I can take Ubuntu {favorite version}, set up some sane defaults (remove crappy and unnecessary programs, install VNC and a DDNS updater), then compile the whole thing into a single CD that installs the working system as is. A little more work and you can have a backup that runs to an external drive (back-in-time), and set the CD to auto-wipe / reinstall the root partition without touching the
If something goes wrong on Ubuntu, conversely, I can hand them a disk with a remote-access agent on it, remote in, and fix their root partition easily.
Look, Ive heard this argument that "I dont want to be their tech repair guy" before, but chances are you already are, and given the choice between friends and family using Windows with its AWFUL update mechanism, its AWFUL vulnerabilities, its AWFUL recovery options, and the joys of having to hunt down drivers to make crap work (ever try installing XP on a machine that was bundled with Vista home? It SUCKS.), I will take Linux with centralized everything and built in drivers any day.
Re:Objects... (Score:3, Insightful)
And Java can be faster than C++, if you write sufficiently good Java code and sufficiently bad C++ code. That you manage to find a single instance of this is true doesn't prove anything.
Re:Objects... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which would be every feature that isn't C with added syntactic sugar.
Yes, there is: it's a simple language with very predictable behaviour, compiles fast, and the resulting binary can be trivially interfaced with pretty much every other language. There's no good reason to use C++: you don't get the benefits of managed environments and the real encapsulation they offer, yet it's almost impossible to figure out what code using templates and operator overloading is actually doing.
Use C for performance and control, or use Java, Python and friends for a real high-level language. C++ gets you the worst of both worlds. Let's just let the damn thing die already.
Re:So.. what is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget window grouping and tab groups. I use that a lot. Expose is nice for managing multiple desktops as well.