Samsung Sponsors the Development of Enlightenment 199
An anonymous reader writes "The Enlightenment window manager project has shared on its website that it now has the backing of a major (top-five) electronics manufacturer that will be actively sponsoring the project and using Enlightenment on its devices. No manufacturer was named, but Phoronix has dug deeper and found out that Samsung is sponsoring Enlightenment. Phoronix provides independent confirmation along with citing a new Enlightenment program that Samsung sponsored and then released under the LGPL-3. They also have videos of some of the new work to this window manager that Samsung funded."
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
That's pretty ambitious. ;-)
So, a Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor, and says "make me one with everything". :-P
Cheers
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
That's pretty ambitious. ;-)
So, a Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor, and says "make me one with everything". :-P
Cheers
The vendor hands him a fully loaded hot dog, and the Buddhist hands him a $20.
After a few moments, the Buddhist asks for his change, and the hot dog vendor replies, "change must come from within".
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo, sir.
Cheers
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
That's pretty ambitious.
No, no, Samsung isn't funding an attempt to develop the attainment of a blessed state in which their customers can transcend desire and suffering and achieve Nirvana. That would be nearly impossible.
Samsung is funding an attempt to develop for their customers a completed version of the Enlightenment Window Manager. That will be completely impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. Waterfall projects. Samsara with its continual release cycles is much more agile.
Seems Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like Fluxbox in terms of resource use (and unfortunately on flashy little GUI indicators) but looks amazing!
Kudos on this! Let's get windows management handled! It's been so many years of updates on something that should have been handled by now!
Re:Seems Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
Awesome [naquadah.org] is awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets hope that Samsung manages to get e17 out of door in 2010.
Wow, I was trying it out 5 years ago and it still hasn't seen a release.
Obvious for netbooks (Score:2)
Samsung is awesome, so is enlightenment.
It's like Fluxbox in terms of resource use (and unfortunately on flashy little GUI indicators) but looks amazing!
Kudos on this! Let's get windows management handled! It's been so many years of updates on something that should have been handled by now!
I've been using Compiz on my desktop the last few months, and the jury is still out. On the netbook, I went all the way back to FVWM just for the speed. The crystal theme is not bad and even the basic FVWM can be pi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If by "looks" you mean utterly tasteless themes based on The Matrix movies, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
*sigh* Why do people insist in this lie? The Matrix had no sequels or video games.
LGPL-3? (Score:4, Insightful)
Enlightment is BSD licensed. You can't just change it to LGPL-3.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The copyright holders can change the license to new releases however they want.
Re:LGPL-3? (Score:4, Informative)
That is true. However, Samsung != the copyright holders. Samsung could, however, fork it and create their own thing, which would not be the same as Samsung developing the original unforked e.
Re:LGPL-3? (Score:4, Insightful)
Samsung could, of course, hand over a fist full of dollars to the copyright holders [phoronix.com] and walk away with a copy of the code under whatever license they ask for.
Or maybe I'm just making this up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But Samsung is not the copyright holders. They can release a LGPL fork, but they cannot touch the license on the original trunk.
Re: (Score:2)
They're just giving the copyright holders large sums of money. That tends to sway judgment!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, being BSD licensed, you can release a fork under a new license I believe since BSD is a permissive license.
The reverse, however, would not be true.
Cheers
Re:LGPL-3? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, being BSD licensed, you can release a fork under a new license I believe since BSD is a permissive license.
The reverse, however, would not be true.
What you believe is wrong. The BSD doesn't let you change the license terms of the source code at your will. You must have permission from the copyright holder(s) to do so.
Re:LGPL-3? (Score:4, Informative)
To further add you may be confusing this with the fact that you can include BSD code inside other code that is licensed under another license, but this doesn't change the license that the BSD code is under.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, other than the need for attribution, doesn't really restrict you much.
But, yes, one occasionally forgets that Slashdot is well populated with semanticists and nit-pickers. ;-)
Cheers
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ...
Short of getting into a pointless pissing match to sort out all of the minor semantic differences between what we've both said, it's effectively something you can e
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Short of getting into a pointless pissing match to sort out all of the minor semantic differences between what we've both said, it's effectively something you can essentially change the license of by only including the statement that it contains some BSD code. Or at least, you can release your software under any license you choose even if it includes BSD code.
There is no minor semantic difference. You just have poor reading comprehension. What that statement is saying is that you can create derived works using BSD license code and release the program as a whole under a proprietary license. But the license to the BSD code is still covered under the BSD license.
You yourself have pointed out several times in this thread that you can do this. The nit-picking is identifying every little way in which one is ever so slightly is semantically different from the other.
I've pointed out that one can create works using BSD code and release that under a different license. But this isn't the same as saying you can relicense BSD code at your will. There is a major differenc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What nitpicking? You claimed one can fork BSD code and change the code's license. That's wrong.
It's effectively the same thing. You can release a "derivative work" that contains an extra newline at the end and release it under a different license. But the original will still be available, so nobody does that.
Re:LGPL-3? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I think this is one weakness of relying on "do whatever you want" licenses like BSD and MIT. Linux can always use BSD and GPL'd code, but the BSD devs want to stick with BSD for their kernels and other projects whenever possible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure you can include BSD code in an LGPL application. BSD is perfectly compatible with the GPL and LGPL.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can take BSD code and re-release it under a proprietary license(as many companies have done), you can take BSD code and re-release it under LGPL-3.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can take BSD code and re-release it under a proprietary license(as many companies have done), you can take BSD code and re-release it under LGPL-3.
As it turns out, you can do neither (legally). If you're not the copyright owner of something, you have no business licensing it. You can combine BSD code with LGPL-3 code or proprietary code (a right granted by the BSD license), but that doesn't automagically change the license to something else.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't relicense BSD code, then any code that incorporates it must be licensed under the BSD license. That sounds a lot like the "viral" GPL.
Scooped (Score:5, Funny)
Enlightenment already developed by Rousseau, Diderot, and Voltaire, among others.
Re: (Score:2)
Enlightenment already developed by Rousseau, Diderot, and Voltaire, among others.
so, you're saying there's prior art?
v2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes it's true that Linux's greatest failing was it didn't have enough DEs!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Enlightenment is a much lighter DE. I don't think it is going to compete with KDE or Gnome for Desktop mind share. I see it as ending up on mobile devices and maybe netbooks. Also Enlightenment is very NeXT/OSX in look. Linux is right now starting to look like it will big in the Mobile market. Android, WebOS, and Maemo are gaining a lot of ground while WinMo is loosing ground.
Linux can never be the winner. Linux is an option and the users are the winners.
Re: (Score:2)
I see it as ending up on mobile devices and maybe netbooks.
I see it ending up on netbooks especially. Eventually it'd be nice to see it installed by default by the OEM. That was a possibility during the first months of netbooks before M$ shut down that option.
However, the work-around, aka the windows refund, might not be as financially bad as it sounds. It used to be profitable to buy a car or other expensive item in a high-tax country and then fill out the import papers to have it brought home and pay the tax at home. The reason was because the vendor had t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Enlightenment has more features than either of the desktops in popular use, when you consider its login manager and file manager as well as support libraries. The major concern I can see would be making it interoperate well with newer Linux desktop standards that have been established since 0.17 started.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "100% native suite" and why does it matter?
I always use some KDE/QT apps with XFCE and I used to use some Gtk apps with KDE.
Re: (Score:2)
This is good news. I'm always looking around for faster desktop environments. Enlightenment is one I keep occasional tabs on. Also Equinox and LXDE. And plain old windows managers too, such as JWM, IceWM, and Fluxbox. The Wikipedia list of these is handy.
XFCE feels bloated and slow, but they brag that they're faster than Gnome or KDE. Just looking at XFCE's memory consumption was depressing. And who wants animation when slow screen repaints provide plenty of eye candy? One thing that makes XFCE so
E17 is pretty stable now (Score:5, Informative)
I've been using it for months as my desktop at home and on my laptop. It is quite usable and I've had zero crashes for a while now. Rasterman has always had a focus on small-screen devices, so this development doesn't surprise me. But if you haven't checked it out in a while, you should.
Re:E17 is pretty stable now (Score:4, Insightful)
The developers had released a roadmap showing that perhaps it would be ready for a Christmas release.
Did they mention the year? Or at least the decade?
I remember waiting for E17. That was about two years before I switched to OS X, so it must be what, five years now?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But I follow the commits pretty regularly, and many of the component software and libraries are reaching a 1.0 and mature status. They have a very clear roadmap to reach a stable release. As I said, I'm not saying they will make a Christmas release. But to go from years of, "it will be done when it's done" to "possibly relea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nah, more like nine years. According to wikipedia: "Version 0.17, also referred to as DR17 or E17, has been in development since December 2000."
I used to look forward to it during a couple of years at the beginning of this decade but have long since given up and lost interest.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember several years ago, Rasterman had posted on his personal website that he was working on E17 to work with mobile phones and had a picture of his own phone running some version or semblance of E17. All I know is if this phone works out pretty well in the next 2 years, my next phone is going to be running E17. The interface I'm sure is going to be fun to use.
Re: (Score:2)
My openmoko phone runs Illume (E17) and I am developing applications for it using the toolkit which comes with Enlightenment. On small screens its a pretty good environment. I tried E17 on my HP laptop and was less impressed. If I had been willing to tweak it before going back to Gnome I might have had better results.
Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
Now maybe we'll see the final release of E17 before the 22nd century. Who knows, it may even come out before Duke Nukem Forever.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
Now maybe we'll see the final release of E17 before the 22nd century. Who knows, it may even come out before Duke Nukem Forever.
I'm sure the first thing Rasterman will do with this new funding is begin a complete rewrite of e from scratch. So once Mitsubishi starts sponsoring Duke Nukem, it'll be a tight race.
Re: (Score:2)
Now maybe we'll see the final release of E17 before the 22nd century. Who knows, it may even come out before Duke Nukem Forever. I'm sure the first thing Rasterman will do with this new funding is begin a complete rewrite of e from scratch. So once Mitsubishi starts sponsoring Duke Nukem, it'll be a tight race.
The people who've modded you "funny" have obviously never followed Enlightenment's development. If they had, your mods would've been "insightful".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First they would have to re-implement Duke Nukem Forever. From scratch. DNF has always been the main dependency of Enlightenment. Remember when Rasterman ditched his entire EVAS library and starter again? It coincided with DNF's switch from the Quake engine to Unreal Engine. Every setback in E17's development has coincided with similar setbacks in DNF.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose thats all dependant on whether E17 will come out at all.
Duke Nukem Forever will never come out.
You DO know the Development team at 3D Realms [3drealms.com] got sacked for not producing a game, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I was looking at the source in the latest CVS builds. The devs have commented (caveat this is not the exact quote): // This lib is for Holographic Projectors display. // E17 is running pretty well on LCDs but when // version 1.0 hits, we'll have to be ready // for the current tech.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I last used enlightenment in like 1998 or so, and always felt like it excelled in gratuitous eye candy and infinite customization, but lacked in usability. But I always respected how Raster was willing to try new and sometimes completely wonky things, because that is how interesting interaction is developed.
But I just tried it again, and was underwhelmed (with E16). It is entirely possible that I am just grumpy in my old age, or I'm no longer in the target audience.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that it was considered a "bloated eye-candy" wm back in the day and a "sleek and fast" wm today :P
e16 is still my favorite WM, though I'm currently back to using WindowMaker at the moment because I managed to break e16 while tweaking the NeXTstep-ish theme to make it darker.
There are several features I like from e16 that have been very difficult to find elsewhere:
* compositing works : drop shadows, semi-transparent gnome-terminal, and semi-transparent window movements look great and work fast. S
Videos show (Score:3, Interesting)
Very interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Enlightenment generally seems reckoned to be very nice technology. I've been repeatedly surprised to see Enlightenment popping up in commercial products here and there; Edje-based wallpapers can even be loaded in KDE now. Evidently it's a strong piece of work and it'll be really interesting to see where this sponsorship gets them. It certainly seems an enlightened approach.
Windowmaker and GNUstep (Score:5, Informative)
I wish someone would do the same with Windowmaker and GNUstep, but I suspect the licensing has closed off that path.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow. I haven't thought about WindowMaker for years. I always enjoyed that wm. If I could be arsed to tear myself away from the joy of openbox + tint2 + conky, I would ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been using Window Maker for nearly a decade now, and have to admit that it's very nice that it's stable (not crashing AND not changing). Sure, it'd be really neat to have compiz or whatever support, but honestly it does everything I want from window management: provides window dressing, an application menu (at the pointer, even!), and a place to dock and/or launch apps from.
Re: (Score:2)
Word, bro'. I'm still using WindowMaker at this moment, since I managed to bjork-up my e16 NeXT-ish theme while trying to make it darker. It was much much easier to apply good-looking WindowMaker themes (but of course it's much simpler).
There are actually a few features from WindowMaker that I really wish other WMs would adopt...
I love the way you can name the virtual desktops, and the desktop names flash on the screen when you switch. This, in combination with the desktop-specific launchers attached to
Re: (Score:2)
I think GNUstep's problem is that porting between GNUstep and OSX keeps getting more difficult. Apple well-documented OpenStep, and it stayed static for a very long time (~10 years). OSX, on the other hand, keeps changing, and is becoming increasingly hardware-dependent since 10.2. Quartz, CoreGraphics, CoreData, etc. etc. all break backwards-compatibility. Many of the new features are also offloaded to hardware. Apple's attitude used to be that if you didn't have new hardware, the new whiz-bang stuff
I love enlightenment (Score:2)
In fact, the old Gnome/Enlightnement desktop paradigm is what originally convinced me to try Linux back in 2000 after hearing a bunch of "linux doesn't even have a desktop!" talk by coworkers. I tried it out and eventually learned that I could run with just Enlightenment and did that and never looked back. I've run AfterStep, Windowmaker, Black/Fluxbox, and a number of other WM's, but will always manage to come back to Enlightenment.
These days, when I bring up new linux installs, the number one task on my l
Used E again recently.... (Score:3, Interesting)
During my time on Fedora 11 I fell out of love with Gnome and switched over to KDE. During my transitional phase I played a bit with E. It was the window manager during the redhat 5.x days when I first started with Linux, and I was nostalgic to see how E had changed.
I liked E's speedy response. It's a lightweight WM without much bloat. Very quick and responsive load times.
On the other hand it needs updating. There's no support for compositing, and GL is software rendered. No acceleration. I'm a Blenderhead so this was not good. It doesn't have a good file manager. I found myself using MC whenever I was in E. No easy menu editing.
I very much would like to see E take it's place again as a viable desktop option. It has so much going for it, be clearly developer resources haven't been available like KDE and Gnome.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lightweight WM without much bloat
There's no support for compositing
They may be related.
Re:Used E again recently.... (Score:5, Informative)
Are you talking about e16 ? Compositing and GL work fine in it (I'm using the release packaged in Debian). I'm actually quite surprised that people don't list it as one of the compositing window managers like Beryl / Compiz.
It doesn't have as many extra features as Beryl / Compiz, but it has the few I care about... namely - composited drop shadows, true-translucent backgrounds in gnome-terminal, translucent window movement, and composited miniature windows in the pager.
It's actually been much more stable than Beryl on my system... eventually Beryl seems to exhaust the video memory and I get lots of video corruption, which seldom happens under the e16 compositor. It's also pretty easy to turn compositing on and off when I want more GPU resources dedicated to an OpenGL app or game.
Re: (Score:2)
Just fyi, your window manager has nothing to do with your Blender window not being hardware accelerated.
Some explain the Linux GUI thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
You have Window managers and desktops and whatnot. X-windows, gnome, enlightenment, etc. From my reading it seems x-windows and enlightenment do overlapping things. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what to use, there is no consistency to this area.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't figure out if this is a troll or if this is genuine confusion.
Re:Some explain the Linux GUI thing? (Score:5, Informative)
They're different layers.
X is the graphics system. It provides the video driver and makes pretty pictures show up on your screen.
Enlightenment is a window manager, it gives those pretty pictures borders so that you can drag them around.
Gnome is a Desktop Environment, which is a couple hundred programs that are designed to work together and work the same way. This includes a window manager, menus for launching programs and a place to hold minimized programs and icons, a file manager, network configuration tools, a terminal, calculator, scanning software, music player, cd ripper, graphics editors, etc etc.
X is always there.
The features that Enlightenment provides works using X.
The features that Gnome provides works using a window manager and X. Gnome provides Metacity as its window manager by default, but you can use others like Enlightenment.
This is highly consistent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm going to assume this isn't a troll, and instead is a real question. Crash course for everyone else:
Unlike OSX and Windows, the graphics subsystem is (almost) completely independent from the core of the OS (kernel). This means that the graphics can be completely removed with little-to-no effort, leaving just a text-based system.
This is because the X-windows system is implemented by Xorg the program. Like any other program it can be killed/removed, etc. This program just happens to take over a terminal wi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are no more layers in the Linux GUI system than in Windows. X, which provides the basic graphics operations, is roughly equivalent to the Windows GDI; the window manager and the desktop environment provide the functions provided by the Windows shell; and the toolkits like GTK and QT are the equivalent of the standard controls in win32. The basic architecture is not very different - it's just that, on Linux, the separate pieces are independent and properly specified, so that you can use a variety of di
Re:Kill the X Boondoggle Already (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how this argument mostly comes from people who know virtually nothing about X. Most importantly, not the difference between the concept, the protocol and the implementation.
And just because it's 20 years old doesn't mean it sucks. How old is TCP/IP? The mouse? The binary system?
Re: (Score:2)
I think what happens is they use a package manager to install every available bit of xorg when a given machine will need perhaps 10% of it. Also people who use GUIs for everything will tend to see a lot of bloat and unresponsiveness. But for those of us who know what we're doing, X is still pretty cool.
Re: (Score:2)
But for those of us who know what we're doing, X is still pretty cool.
Hmm. That sounds like computers from quite a while ago. That sounds like one of the main reasons people use Windows (you don't have to know what you're doing and edit a bunch of configuration files to get it working properly). It doesn't even sound like your sig - "FreeBSD Just Works for me."
If I can't install X easily and have it run relatively efficiently without bloat and unresponsiveness, then X - or the package manager - needs to be fixed. Being too complex/customizeable and making people waste time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that's fair enough. I guess I don't see anything wrong in trying to get rid of bloat/bugginess while making it eas[y][ier], though.
(in general, I agree X isn't the culprit... whether or not X can be improved on is a question, of course, but I agree with the general feeling that X isn't as bad as lot of people try to say it is).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
view/hear/produce multimedia, and entertain myself with a smidge of eyecandy
Well, the "hear" bit is debatable at times. ;)
(well, in my experience, ALSA works pretty well... but the push to move to a very buggy pulseaudio seems stupid...)
Re: (Score:2)
:)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I can't install X easily and have it run relatively efficiently without bloat and unresponsiveness, then X - or the package manager - needs to be fixed.
True, but the key word is "relatively". Relatively to OSX and Windows, X even at its most bloated is *still* a paradigm of efficiency. Its just that, once you're familiar with it, you can make it do even more with less.
I guess it's a bit like Emacs. For the uninitiated, it's an extremely capable editor. For those who have mastered it, however, it's God's greatest gift to Mankind.
Re: (Score:2)
UNIX in general? (With Linux effectively being a re-implementation of UNIX.)
Re: (Score:2)
I have worked with X and I would love to hear what makes it great. I will agree that current implementations seem to leave a lot to be desired but how much of that is because of the actual design and how much is because of poor programing?
What makes X better than say Quartz? Or the current Windows graphics systems? I like most programers these days just us GTK or QT for our apps.
So for the average users what makes X the best besides the large amount of existing software running on it? I honestly wonder jus
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great none answer.
Apple wrote Quartz didn't they? It didn't take decades.
The question is what does X do better than say Quartz? Besides the large base of software and applications that use it why keep it?
I am not sure that you would not keep most of the software once GT and GTK are ported.
I am asking the valid question of why keep X and not even think about replacing it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to replace X, the question you should be asking is, what does X do worse than Quartz? There's no point replacing X just for the sake of it - if you want people to think about replacing X, you need to explain what's wrong with X.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that is a problem. I find it funny because I am not saying that we should drop X. I am asking why shouldn't we. Couldn't a new solution be better for users today.
I will say that right now the current implementation of X on Linux really isn't that great. It seems very fragile and the configuration tools are not ideal to say the least.
I don't think Xs support for accelerated video playback is fully baked yet as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that they are cross platform. That was my point. If you port things like GTK, QT, and Motif to a new graphics framework just how many applications would even notice?
Keeping X for backward compatibility just doesn't seem that important.
Re: (Score:2)
and the binary system has existed for a finite period of time, the value cannot be 0,
therefore the age of the binary system is 1.
Now we just have to determine a proper unit of measure for 1.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of keeping code that works and improving it, we end up throwing it away and starting from scratch. That is what causes situations like the OSS/ALSA/PulseAudio mess. So far we have mostly managed to ignore the morons calling for the death of X, hopefully that will continue.
So far we have mostly managed to ignore the morons calling for the death of PulseAudio, hopefully that will continue as well.
Pulse is new code, not a rewrite of anything. Yes, ESD was a sound server too, but the similarity ends there.
Many of PulseAudio's problems are caused by "iffy" stuff in ALSA drivers, and the ALSA folks are working to fix the bugs Pulse exposes. Many more are caused by distro people making questionable decisions on how to set it up (see Ubuntu/rtkit).
I'm sure glad that PA isn't going a
Re:Kill the X Boondoggle Already (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with PulseAudio isn't PulseAudio. The problem is that the presently known-to-be-unstable PulseAudio/ALSA/apps combo is pushed to "stable" desktop distros. It's like KDE 4.0 "stable beta" release, only it's taking longer, and people are understandingly getting more impatient.
Some guy out there simply knows that if he has PulseAudio, his sound is crap, and if he removes it using his package manager (which could well be Ubuntu "Add/Remove Software" or something similarly easy), it starts working.
At least it's not from the 70s (Score:2)
Chrome OS is based on technology with strong roots in the 70s, i.e. Unix and C. Moreover, the creators of Unix went on to create a new OS (Plan 9) to solve its problems and, recently, a new programming language (Go). Both Unix and C have been able to remain strong over time and add modern features whilst staying true to their roots and, broadly, retaining compatibility. This is particularly true for Unix, despite some questionable design decisions along the way.
The link you supplied is from the Unix-hate
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the title of your article is "How to make your 50-MIPS Workstation Run Like a 4.77MHz IBM PC"
Since the CPU in my laptop is rated at over 4000 Vax MIPS, I'll happily throw 1-2% of that away to get the benefits of proven software. Most of the time one or the other of the cores is close to zero utilization anyway.
What I'd like to see is simpler security setup (without sacrificing features or security of course). That's when you say "there has to be an easier way". It's bad when tunneling a protocol thr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
``What's in this for Samsung ? Are they going to run Enlightenment on their mobile phones ? Their TV's ?''
Possibly. Mobile phones are actually powerful enough these days to get pretty much all the flashy eye candy stuff you might want, but Enlightenment is one of the few products that _both_ run on such "low-end" hardware and provide the eye candy.
Besides mobiles phones and TVs, though, Samsung may also be thinking about notebooks.
Re: (Score:2)