What is the purpose of snazzy Window Managers/Compositors?

[Emanuele_Z]

Hi all,

as per suggestion on Ask Ubuntu I've posted same question here in the forums:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/18315...gers-composers
Basically, what's the point of using many more resources to have snazzy window managers?
Any idea?

Cheers

[vasa1]

I guess they closed the question because they want stuff that doesn't involve opinion and argument. More of a "how-to" rather than a "why is".

Anyway, the argument can always be that there are lighter alternatives available based on Ubuntu and those wishing for something lighter may use some of those others.

If Canonical wants to utilize its resources in a particular way, we can help or get out of the way

[Emanuele_Z]

Thanks for the reply, but what is the answer to my question?
And btw, is not just about Canonical with Unity but even Gnome3 is on the same boat...

Again, what is the real benefit regarding snazzy WM apart a more plesant look for the eye?

What's your opinion about the question?

Ps. using a similar answer to yours, please reply or, i quote, get out of the way, don't flame or spam.

[2F4U]

Different people have different opinons about what looks good and what they need to be productive. You could also ask why there are different desktop environments such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, and so on. Wouldn't it be enough to just have one?
To have just one DE is the answer of companies such as Microsoft and Apple. In Linux, people have the choice.

[vasa1]

... what is the answer to my question?
...
Again, what is the real benefit regarding snazzy WM apart a more pleasant look for the eye?

What's your opinion about the question?

To look attractive. Why isn't that sufficient reason? Why should there be an "additional" benefit?

[Emanuele_Z]

Different people have different opinons about what looks good and what they need to be productive. You could also ask why there are different desktop environments such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, and so on. Wouldn't it be enough to just have one?
To have just one DE is the answer of companies such as Microsoft and Apple. In Linux, people have the choice.

Ok, I think you're missing the question. I'm all up about choice, don't get me wrong.
My question is more along the lines of, why do we have these resource consumer WM.
For example, Unity or Gnome3, if it's about productivity, how many companies are using those ui?
I don't know, in fact my fear is that the only _real_ purpose of the snazzy uis is just to be fashionable. Why is cool, but not productivity related.

I've and am using Linux professionally, to develop software, and productivity on Linux is about getting things done, using less and less the mouse and more they keyb.

My 2 cents,
Cheers!

[malspa]

Well, if you spend a lot of time using a computer, why not make it a little more enjoyable? I mean, do you change the desktop background to something you like? Do you change the desktop theme, or stick with the default?

I think most modern computers can handle the extra fluff.

[2F4U]

Ok, I think you're missing the question. I'm all up about choice, don't get me wrong.

I don't think that I miss the question and it is about choice. Why can't you accept that people just like all the graphical gimmicks?

My question is more along the lines of, why do we have these resource consumer WM.

We have does desktops because there is a demand for them, i. e. there are enough people who want them and so there are enough developers attracted to work on them. Why would any developer work on Gnome or KDE if users would not use those?

[ZoiaGuyver]

The question your posing is also a little one sided.

The "snazzy" effects can help, opacity for active and non-active windows allow me to focus easier when multi tasking as an example. Most of the effects are to make things look "pretty" or "unified" you can interpret it either way.

There is another argument that would be related to "hardware". If we don't need even some of the effects that can be made, then why have graphics boards that are more powerful and have more memory than the cards we had 5 years ago?, the same goes for processors, memory and all hardware.

The resources a PC can provide has increased as well. Some of the effects are not just there as "eye candy" some are there accessibility also, Why would they limit the use of a PC to "productivity" and nothing more, the whole PC over the years has changed, a PC no longer relates to just being productive, its now seen as a "Entertainment" system also, along with that the look of the UI and the UX has changed.

The UI with all the bells and whistles makes a much better fit in multiple locations, ranging from the Office to the living room.

But I guess it would depend on the environment. I use my PC for many things, it's not just a productivity suite for me any more.

[matt_symes]

This is a thread with no real technical answer.

Basically, what's the point of using many more resources to have snazzy window managers?

The question could have easily been rephrased to question the converse and still not have any meaningful technical answer.

As such it has been "Moved to the Cafe".