Erkki Posted January 26, 2007 Has anyone tried the new Linux 3D desktops (or other 3D desktops)? I've given a try to Compiz in Ubuntu before and now I've been using Beryl (a fork of Compiz) in the latest Ubuntu beta for a week or so. I think Beryl doesn't work with ATI's own driver and the open source driver is kind of slow, but otherwise this thing is pretty cool. Beryl creates a 3D cube instead of a flat desktop. I think it's awesome. Linux had virtual "workspaces" before, but I never used them. Now that the workspaces map directly to sides of a cube and thus create a visual association, I find them pretty useful for grouping related windows together. Now if only they make it properly support different backgrounds and icons for the cube sides... Also, I think it's a pretty easy transition -- my mom thought she was using the regular desktop until I showed her that it can be rotated. Attached: Beneath a Steel Sky in 3D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick Posted January 26, 2007 I remember a couple of years ago a friand of mine was using a spherical desktop for windows. I seem to recall you could pull windows forward from the wall of the sphere and rotate the thing etc. Seemed kind of cool but not for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coldkill Posted January 27, 2007 Looks cool but I think I'll either stick with having a single desktop or have the virtual desktop thing some flavours of Linux have IE fedora. Cold Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted January 27, 2007 Will it really change the way we work though? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n0wak Posted January 27, 2007 Looks like a usability nightmare. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted January 27, 2007 It's actually quite intuitive. I've been using Beryl for a few weeks, it's quite a clear way of organising windows. CTRL+ ALT+LMB allows you to move the cube using the mouse (It snaps to the nearest desktop when you let go). Being able to shove windows you don't use much to one side is really handy, because four desktops allow you to dump them as related sets (So, for instance you can put all your web stuff on one desktop and music on another). It also has the OSX type thing where moving the mouse into a corner gives you thumbnails of all open windows. Between the two, it's much faster and more intuitive than hunting and pecking on a taskbar. I avoided Linux like the plague for years because OSS could be so unstable, but Ubuntu now is usuable for anyone who can proficiently dick around with computers. I think it's still not quite there for average users; I've had to learn a lot to run it adequately, but I spend way more time in it than XP now. A lot of Beryl is just "pointless" glitz, but deep down in there is some actual functionality. Here's a (The OSX dock shown is a different mod).@ Coldkill: That is the normal virtual desktop setup of Linux, Beryl is just a different front end which also keeps the standard interface at the bottom right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manny_c44 Posted January 28, 2007 Most Linux GUIs that I've seen have the option to split your work across 4 different desktops, with a little icon on the task bar to click on the one you want to view. How is, this in any form, superior? It just needlessly hogs resources. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erkki Posted January 28, 2007 Most Linux GUIs that I've seen have the option to split your work across 4 different desktops, with a little icon on the task bar to click on the one you want to view. How is, this in any form, superior? It just needlessly hogs resources. It's superior by mapping those different desktops to a visual metaphor (cube) instead of something purely abstract. Also, I don't know all the details about resource usage, but it most definitely doesn't hog resources -- it uses the graphics hardware to render stuff instead of doing software rendering. But that is probably compensated by it needing to do more. In my experience, the GUIs are even more responsive during normal operation. It may use the processor more while rotating the cube etc., but at that time you don't really interact with anything else anyhow. Also, task switching has never been better, showing window contents in real time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted January 28, 2007 Um, just to cut past all the "open source is bollocks!", "no it's not!" tiresomeness: OSS operating systems currently seem to be about where Mozilla was before it became Firefox: Impressive, but a bit shaky and not quite user friendly enough. Linux is inherently customisable, which gets rid of a lot of things that irk me about Windows. I'm not going to pretend that other annoyances haven't replaced them (poor support for some video formats, high learning overheads to get certain things up and running, etc.), but overall they're a more bearable set. It's flexibility means that if you think something is pointless, you can almost certainly get rid of it. Those irks I mentioned are genuine arguments against Linux. These ones are hypothetical: How is, this in any form, superior? It just needlessly hogs resources. *drum roll* Welcome to the world of subjective value judgments! There is no needlessness or needfulness here. wrt resources, Beryl uses the GPU, and when you're doing anything other than massive graphical transforms, a negligible amount of CPU and RAM on top of that. Same for virtual desktops: negligible resource usage for a subjective return. Virtual desktops are handy for grouping windows - having photoshop and an IM client on the same desktop used to drive me insane. Not your bag? Well ok then. I need not convince you otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oath Posted January 28, 2007 I like Ubuntu and I think I'll do a partition with it (and Beryl, since I love flashy presentation) next time I feel like cleaning my hard drive up. How bad would you say the performance with ATI cards is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erkki Posted January 28, 2007 With the open source "radeon" driver the performance was bad during window animations like minimizing. However, I got it to work with the proprietary "fglrx" driver, although that needed some hassle and a few google searches before I found the configuration that worked for me. With that, the performance seems really good. But it has crashed a few times already. I hope this is gonna get better during 2007. ATM both Beryl and Compiz seem somewhat unstable for me. But I've grown so used to the cube already that I really miss it when I'm on Windows. It really helps that you can push some distractions to the side to be dealt with later. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manny_c44 Posted January 29, 2007 *drum roll* Welcome to the world of subjective value judgments! No need to get edgy, I was really wondering how it would benefit the user (since the resource use isn't a problem as you said)...you have to admit though, if it is crash prone those subjective returns will dry up quickly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted January 29, 2007 I'm using it with nvidia, and it isn't crash prone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erkki Posted January 30, 2007 Hmm... maybe I should get an NVIDIA card too, I need an upgrade soon anyway. Is NVIDIA on Linux considered a better choice than ATI overall? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted January 30, 2007 I'm nowhere near an authority as I'm pretty new to it myself, but I've heard generally positive rumblings about support for nvidia. I did have to find drivers and install them, and it wasn't quite as easy as doing it with Windows, but it's a breeze compared to the couple of days a friend spent trying to get ATI graphics to work properly in a laptop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
